Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1971–72

Return ordered,

Return of Accounts of the Contingencies Fund 1971–72 showing:

(1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st day of March 1972
(2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Fox.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

House Prices

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average increase in the price of houses since June 1970.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average amount and proportion by which the price of a new house rose during 1972; and the average price of such a house at the latest available date.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): The estimated average price of housing mortgaged with building societies in the second quarter of 1970 was £5,082 for new dwellings and £4,778 for second-hand dwellings. Corresponding figures for the fourth quarter of 1972 were £8,571 and £8,639 respectively. The increase in the average price of new dwellings between the fourth quarter of 1971 and the fourth quarter of 1972 was £2,520 or 42 per cent.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the effect of this monstrous increase in housing prices is even further added to by the excessive interest rates charged by the building societies? Is he further aware that in this instance he will not be able to blame foreign factors, because this excessive increase in house prices is due to the Rent Act, to land speculation and to the inefficiency of private building firms?

Mr. Channon: I do not agree with all that the hon. Gentleman says. However, as my right hon. Friend explained to the House last week, the Government are naturally very concerned about the increase in house prices. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what is said in the White Paper.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The increase in prices is due to many causes, including shortages. Has the Department any record of the part played in these increased costs by the increases in wages paid to building workers, in the price of concrete, in delivery charges, and so forth?

Mr. Channon: I do not have those detailed figures with me, but there have been very substantial wage increases, as my hon. Friend points out.

Mr. Hardy: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those increases would be smaller than the profit made by land speculators in recent years? Does he not also agree that he and his party can no longer claim that ordinary people can still afford to buy a small new house, since the outgoings in respect of such a purchase would amount to at least £15 a week?

Mr. Channon: That is not so. If the hon. Gentleman will study the figures for mortgages taken out last year he will see, in respect of borrowers with incomes up to the average industrial wage, that the number of mortgages taken out increased from 114,000 to 147,000.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that bricklayers' wages have increased, at a conservative estimate, by at least 26 per cent? Are not bricklayers now earning between £50 and £100 a week?

Mr. Channon: I agree that wages have risen considerably. The average earnings


index rose by 36 per cent. between the second quarter of 1970 and November 1972.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the hon. Gentleman admit that the price for old houses has risen by 40 per cent? Does he further admit that part of the staggering increase in the cost of houses is due to the fact that families are being forced to try to buy houses, because of the catastrophic fall in council house building programmes?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has a further Question on this point later on. The only short answer to the question of house prices is to provide more houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to have the support of the Opposition. I shall no doubt receive congratulations from the Opposition for the fact that private sector starts are so sharply up.

Housing

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of local authority building, particularly in the West Midlands; and what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to carry out their statutory duties in this regard.

Mr. Channon: My Department has written to all the conurbation authorities in the West Midlands to ask them for their estimates of the future need for new council housing in their areas. No restriction is placed by the Government on the number of houses which a local authority may build.

Mrs. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the restrictions are those of finance for raising money to build and the cost of building land? Does he know how many families are on the housing waiting lists? Does he know the housing programmes of the local authorities? If he does not, will he get this information, because whenever we have asked for it we have been refused it?
Can he say, in answer to the last part of the Question, what he is going to do to encourage local authorities to build? How will he enable them to build at prices which people can afford?

Mr. Channon: What I did, first, was to write to local authorities asking for their estimates of the future need for council housing. We have to discover the need for council housing in a particular area. Where there is a need, I hope that local authorities will pursue an energetic programme to fulfil the need. If the hon. Lady has a problem about Wolverhampton, I hope that she will get in touch with me. I know of no substantial difficulties in Wolverhampton.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend define a conurbation authority? I looked in the Oxford Dictionary for the word "conurbation" and could not find it. Will my hon. Friend explain it?

Mr. Channon: I apologise for the use of that extremely ugly term. I have written to all the conurbation—I beg pardon—to all county boroughs. "Conurbation" is, I think, a well-known technical term. I have written to all the authorities in those areas and to all county boroughs, except for Greater London, where a special action group is already working.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does not the Minister know that many councils now controlled by the Labour Party—Leicester is an example—are making valiant efforts to increase the amount of municipal housing but are experiencing the greatest difficulty because of the Government's policy on finance? What will he do to help?

Mr. Channon: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's question. What policy on finance? Unlike the position under our predecessors, there is no restriction on local authorities wishing to build. They now receive substantial help under the rising cost subsidy, and no financial restrictions are put in their way. In fact, the Housing Finance Act helps rather than hinders local authorities with these problems.

Mr. Crosland: That is an incredible answer. We all know that many local authorities would like to build much more than they are building today. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the simple question: what is stopping them?

Mr. Channon: As they are virtually all controlled by the right hon. Gentleman's own party, perhaps he can give us the answer.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities now have programmes which include the building of houses for sale, giving for London and the rest of the country the number of completions and starts during the past three years, and his estimates for the current year.

Mr. Channon: Information is not available in the precise form requested. In recent months 18 local authorities have had building-for-sale schemes approved. About 1,300 houses are involved. Last year about 800 houses built specifically for sale were sold by local authorities in England and Wales.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he sympathetic to the scheme of council house building for sale? If that is the case, what encouragement is he prepared to give local authorities?

Mr. Channon: Where for any reason there is special need for houses for sale—especially for those in the lower income brackets—which is not being met, my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to consider authorising local authorities to employ contractors to build for sale.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how a labourer in the gas industry receiving £19·10 gross pay per week will ever be in a position to buy any type of house, particularly in view of the staggering increase in house prices since 1970?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must have heard my previous answers on this matter.

Mr. Heffer: Answer this one; never mind the previous ones.

Mr. Loughlin: What chance is there of local authorities replacing their housing stocks at a reasonable price for rent if they are encouraged to sell their existing low-priced houses? Will not the hon. Gentleman begin to understand that the local authority housing stock is of primary importance if we are to rehouse people who are not earning fabulous sums of money?

Mr. Channon: The Question on the Order Paper relates to the building of houses for sale and not to the sale of existing council houses. As I have ex-

plained many times on the question of the sale of existing council houses, I believe that there is an overwhelming duty on local authorities to allow those of their tenants who wish to have the right and opportunity to purchase to be able to do so.

Sheffield (Transport Facilities)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will agree to support an immediate survey of the passenger car and public transport requirements of the city of Sheffield, and the need to improve accessibility of customers and freight to all shops, department stores, and places of trade.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): My Department is already supporting the land use transportation study, which includes extensive surveys of the movement of people and freight.

Mr. Osborn: The Secretary of State for the Environment has had letters on this subject. Is there not a need for cities and towns to publish their proposals, and is there not the additional difficulty that shopkeepers tend to distrust proposals put forward by Socialist councils? Bearing in mind, first, the recommendation of the Select Committee that the central Government should take more interest in these matters, second, the fact that the Minister has intervened in regard to the Moss-borough expressway in Sheffield, and third, the need to put forward more ring road and through-bus route proposals, will not my right hon. Friend do something more active to support all cities—including Sheffield—which have to deal with these problems?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that further action is called for from my Department, beyond support for the study. In general, I wish to encourage sensible experiments and consultation. I remind the House that when one takes measures such as I believe have to be taken to curtail the movement of the motor car they will always provoke protests—very often from traders whose anxieties are subsequently seen to be not too well founded.

Mr. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me that his answer will give a great deal of satisfaction in


Sheffield? Does he agree that these matters must be settled by the local authority, in consultation with all the local interests concerned? Further, does he accept that there is a great deal of public support for what the Sheffield council is doing in this respect?

Mr. Peyton: Within limits, I would accept almost anything from the right hon. Gentleman.

Seat Belts

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the significant reduction in injuries in those countries where the wearing of seat belts is compulsory, he will now introduce similar legislation.

Mr. Peyton: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 18th October, I prefer to see what can be done by persuasion. Seat belt wearing, therefore, forms a major element of this year's road safety publicity.—[Vol. 843, c. 84.]

Mr. Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend realise that persuasion is not enough? In answer to an earlier Question he admitted that his advertising campaign, costing £750,000, is achieving only a 30 per cent. response. Can he continue to justify about 300 fatal and serious accidents a week? Ought he not now to introduce legislation?

Mr. Peyton: This is an important matter. I have never taken it lightly. I have always wanted to see what could be done by persuasion, though I have said that one must be free to consider compulsion if necessary, since, in the light of the Australian experience, it is almost certain that a considerable number of lives and serious casualties could be saved by a high rate of seat belt wearing.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that all advertising campaigns, including the present Jimmy Savile's "Clunk, click" and scarred faces campaign, are doomed to failure because people will always go back to not wearing their safety belts afterwards? As it is likely that about 15,000 serious injuries and deaths every year could be saved if people wore their safety belts, does the Minister not think that the time has come to force people to wear them?

Mr. Peyton: I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's concern. One of the factors which would influence my thinking and that of the Government would be opinion in Parliament on this matter, because no one would wish lightly to resort to compulsion.

Mr. Mulley: I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in relation to a law which might be difficult to enforce, but in his publicity will he take fully into account the recent court decision which meant that a person's damages were reduced because seat belts were not worn? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the insurance companies, see that this is brought fully to the attention of all motorists?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. When the courts press the public in the direction of common sense and prudence —as they have done in that case—I greatly appreciate it.

Local Government Members (Allowances)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the amount of the allowance which is to be paid to members of the new local government bodies.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 31st January 1973 to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes).—[Vol. 849. c. 394–5.]

Mr. Lamond: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that this matter, while not a deciding factor in candidates' minds, is none the less of great importance, and that it would be extremely helpful to them if he could remove the uncertainty about the future, and, in addition, set the level of the allowance sufficiently high to ensure that people do not lose money by becoming members of local authorities?

Mr. Page: As regards the timing of the announcement, this does not come into operation until 1st April 1974, but the deadline for first nominations for the elections this year is 20th March, I think, and I hope that we shall be able to make the announcement in good time before that, so


that people may decide whether to stand. On the amount, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait. We have said throughout the Local Government Reorganisation Bill that it would be generous.

A418 (Linslade)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for an early start on the reconstruction of the A418 ring road railway bridge at Linslade, Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): Bedfordshire County Council, the local highway authority, has not yet put forward proposals for the reconstruction of this bridge. Until it does, we cannot suggest when the scheme might be carried out.

Mr. Madel: Until this bridge is reconstructed, heavy goods vehicles have to pass through residential areas on roads not built for that purpose. In view of the progress of the Heavy Commercial Vehicles Bill through the House, may I urge my hon. Friend to push Bedfordshire County Council to make an early start on the project?

Mr. Speed: The decision is for the county council. I understand that it is trying to agree details with British Rail. It is up to the county council to put the scheme forward to my Department.

Oil Refineries

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the siting of oil refineries.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have not entered into discussions with local authorities on the siting of refineries but I have recently sent them a note guidance on the factors which commonly need to be taken into account. This should help authorities in giving advice to companies inquiring about potential sites for refineries which could be to national and local advantage.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his guidance does not go far enough? There is a serious deficiency, in that it does not

require companies to undertake an impact survey of the results of refineries on the environment? Will he have consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland and, with him, offer such advice to local authorities and companies which might be contemplating the siting of new refineries?

Mr. Rippon: I keep in touch with all my right hon. Friends in other Departments who are concerned about this matter. In dealing with a particular case the question of the environment is of manifest importance.

Sir Bernard Braine: In this connection, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the determined opposition of local authorities in South-East Essex to proposals for additional oil refineries alongside residential populations? Will he note that this is a classical example of the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), namely, the need to consider the total impact of planning decisions on the environment of people who are already under savage assault?

Mr. Rippon: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend about that. There is no talk or possibility of oil refineries in connection with the Maplin airport development. I explained in the debate last week that approval in principle had been given by the Government to the concept of a port and oil terminal, but the Port of London Authority has to make proposals, which have to be considered under the Harbours Act. My predecessor made clear that there would not be primary industry development in connection with Maplin—and that includes oil refineries.

Bus Fares (Schoolchildren)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to the National Bus Company to extend half-fares for schoolchildren to cover those aged up to 16 years.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the principle was introduced to enable young persons to travel at concessionary fares until they reached the compulsory school leaving age of 14? Now that the school leaving


age is 16, should not they continue to travel at those concessionary rates? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost of fares to schoolchildren has more than trebled, and that this is especially hard on young people who receive no financial assistance from the local education authority? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister responsible for transport undertakings, give a direction to enable such young people to enjoy half fares until they reach the compulsory school leaving age?

Mr. Peyton: I believe that the original concession was made by the undertakings on commercial grounds. I regard the habit of Ministers giving directions to nationalised industries as very bad, but I do not doubt that the Chairman of the National Bus Company will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If my hon. Friend will do nothing, will he consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether she will help in the matter? It is one of great concern to those who wish to extend their children's education as far as possible.

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister should not be so reticent about giving directives. He should take a lesson from his right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister take a lesson from his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who only this week has given what is more or less a directive to the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority that it should not introduce free fares for old people in the Tyneside area?

Mr. Peyton: I hardly think that that arises out of this Question. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who is so busy shouting from a sitting position is confusing passenger transport authorities with nationalised industries. I am asked to give a general directive to a nationalised industry. I have said that,

on the whole, giving such directives is, in my opinion, a bad habit.

Housing Land

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for an interim report of the London Action Group concerning land in outer London boroughs which could be used for local authority housing developments by inner London boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question from him by my hon. Friend on 24th January.—[Vol. 849, c. 151–2.]

Mr. Davis: Is not it an absolute scandal, which could be reflected in a further interim report, that the Tory local authorities of Barnet and Bromley should have directly sabotaged the efforts of inner London local authorities to acquire land in those areas? When will the Minister take powers to ensure that those recalcitrant, anti-social and snobbish Tory local authorities take action to relieve some of the distress in inner London areas?

Mr. Channon: I cannot accept that from the hon. Gentleman. A great deal of progress has been made in London housing. I was very pleased that in spite of the immense impact of the building strike last year the London figures stood up as well as they did. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is taking the chair of the Action Group, and will report in due course.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the problem of homelessness in London is now so serious that it may be difficult to preserve law and order for much longer? The situation is worse than it has ever been and something effective must be done, because people will just not put up with living for months and years in conditions of misery and squalor.

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the serious and tragic nature of homelessness in London. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services I have already had meetings with the Greater London Council and representatives of the London boroughs—including representatives from the hon. Gentleman's borough—to see what can


be done to ameliorate the situation. I shall remain in touch with them.

Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the basic suggestions put to him by the London boroughs' representatives at the meeting to which he referred? In view of the great progress he has said is being made in London local authority housing, will he say what acreage has been made available to local authorities as a result of the work of the Action Group? What action has been taken, apart from the provision of information about land availability?

Mr. Channon: The discussion with the London boroughs and the GLC was of a private nature, and I should not reveal what took place without their permission —though I should have no objection to revealing anything which took place. We shall shortly have a report from the Action Group, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will continue to ask questions about that.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that sufficient building land is available in the county of Norfolk; and what response he has had to his recent circular on this subject.

Mr. Channon: Discussions so far with the Norfolk County Council and building industry representatives suggest that in general the supply is adequate. Further information from the county is being studied by the industry in preparation for another meeting. No formal return under Circular 102/72 has been asked for from Norfolk.

Mr. Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the resentment that will be felt in Norfolk at the complacency of that answer? There are 259 villages in the county, and 59 of them are in my constituency. It is possible to get planning permission only in exceptional circumstances. There is a feeling that very little is being done by my hon. Friend's Department to alter the situation.

Mr. Channon: I have read what my hon. Friend had to say in his recent speech on this matter. I refute what he says about complacency. There have been discussions not only with the Norfolk County Council but with the building industry. No one can say that the Depart-

ment is complacent. If my hon. Friend likes to pursue this matter further in relation to particular areas of Norfolk I shall be delighted to go into it.

Council Housing (Cost Yardstick)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, as one way of stopping the further decrease in council house building, he will now increase the cost yardstick allowance, not only where local market conditions make this necessary, but generally, in view of the national rise in building costs and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: The yardstick arrangements are now more flexible and are not holding up the approval of reasonable tenders. Our readiness to grant allowances to meet local market conditions is, in my view, the most effective way of dealing with the present tendering situation.

Mr. Allaun: But is not the Minister aware that councils are anxious for a general increase? They do not aim to profiteer out of house building. Would not it be safe to allow them to have a general increase, as they have no motive for abusing it?

Mr. Channon: What has been done is more flexible and more satisfactory than just a general increase. I accept the rigid nature of the yardstick controls, which were introduced not by me but by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends. I know of hardly any case in the country where schemes are being held up by the yardstick. I know of none in Salford. [Interruption.] Hon. Members make generalised assertions. If they will send me details of schemes being held up in this way I shall gladly look into them.

Mr. Jay: As the hon. Gentleman has so rightly said that the way to bring down house prices is to provide more houses, will he at least give an assurance that his Department will not agree to the destruction of existing houses to build roads?

Mr. Channon: That is another question.

Mr. Crosland: There seems to be the most extraordinary conflict of evidence here. The Minister asked for evidence of councils that were prevented from building all they wanted to build. Is he


aware that the case of Leicester has already been referred to this afternoon? Does he recall that in the debate on housing on Tuesday of last week I quoted the words of two housing committee chairmen—one in Norwich and one in Hammersmith? Will he at least give an answer on those three specific cases?

Mr. Channon: It is much better if I can have a specific question, or a letter about a specific case. I genuinely believe that very few schemes are being held up because of yardstick difficulties. I ask hon. Members on both sides who think that I am wrong to give me evidence, and then I shall see whether they are right or I am right.

Driving Tests

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average length of time which applicants for driving tests have to wait for their tests.

Mr. Peyton: Nine weeks at 26th January 1973.

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents is having to wait for no less than 20 weeks? I agree that the illness of the examiner added to that delay, but does not the fact that the illness of one examiner can so prolong the waiting time for a driving test suggest the need for a better deployment of resources, in order to avoid long delays of that kind?

Mr. Peyton: Illness distorts even the best arrangements. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the case he mentioned I shall be glad to look into it.

Operation Eyesore

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress of special environmental assistance schemes.

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the period during which grants are payable under the scheme known as Operation Eyesore.

Mr. Rippon: I am satisfied that this scheme has had a major impact on the quality of the environment in the assisted

areas. By the end of January over 11,000 projects valued at about £28 million had been approved for grant in England. I am reviewing the working of this scheme but have not yet decided whether it can be extended beyond 30th June this year.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Government are to be congratulated on a measure that can create a better image for the North. But is it not a fact that the schemes took a long time to set up and that there will have been only one year and one tree-planting season to carry them out? If Operation Eyesore is ended in June, will not the impetus to improvement and employment be lost?

Mr. Rippon: It has certainly been a successful scheme. The whole purpose was to give a short, sharp boost to the assisted areas, and to urge speed. It is encouraging that in Teesside, for example, 271 schemes have been approved at a cost of £670,000, which shows that Operation Eyesore has been very effective.

Mr. Conlan: Does the Minister appreciate that, although the scheme has been beneficial to the regions, all the work that is vitally necessary cannot possibly be carried out before the end of June? What is more, in the Northern Region the unemployment figure is still running at 6 per cent. On those grounds alone there is a very good case for an extension.

Mr. Rippon: These are factors that we will bear in mind in considering whether to extend the scheme. I am reviewing its working at present.

North Lancashire Motorway

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will speed up his decision on the line of the North Lancashire motorway where it runs through Blackburn.

Mr. Peyton: I will do my best.

Mrs. Castle: Will not the Minister tell us when we can expect his decision? Is he aware that the Blackburn borough engineer has forecast that there may be a 12 months' delay before it is known'? Is it not grossly unfair to leave those affected in uncertainty about the future of their businesses and homes, particularly with the rise in property values going on all the time, so that those who lose


their own homes and have to get others may find that they have been adversely hit by this intolerable delay?

Mr. Peyton: Nobody knows better than the right hon. Lady the real difficulties involved. When I said that I would do my best I meant it. I would rather not give the right hon. Lady an answer at the moment. I will write to her as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Waddington: Will the Minister personally do everything he can to hurry on the project as a whole, it long having been accepted that it is vital to the industrial survival of North-East Lancashire that the road should be completed right through to Colne before the new town begins to grow.

Mr. Peyton: I will do exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am rather relieved to be encouraged to get on with a road rather than to hold one back.

Kimbolton (Bypass)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now announce his intention with regard to building a bypass for the village of Kimbolton.

Mr. Speed: The A45 through Kimbolton is the responsibility of the county council. However, the future requirements of this section of A45 can be determined only when decisions are taken on the proposed M1-A1 link in this area.

Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that it looks from other answers and letters that I have received that decisions on these matters will not be taken for a year or two? Meanwhile juggernauts are unable to negotiate the bends at each end of this ancient village, and the walls of scheduled buildings centuries old are being knocked down. Will he do his best to give the highest priority for a bypass for Kimbolton?

Mr. Speed: I expect the feasibility study to be completed by the end of this year. If in the meantime the county wishes to put forward proposals for a bypass at Kimbolton we will consider them. However, it would be better to wait for the result of the feasibility study to get the right answer.

Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, although many people welcome the fact that a motorway is likely between the Midlands and the East Coast, the A45, which runs through some very small places, needs improvement whether or not the motorway is built?

Mr. Speed: I appreciate that improvements are needed. We have accelerated the feasibility study and we hope to have the answers by the end of this year. It should solve many of the traffic problems that my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) have in their constituencies.

River Pollution

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to reduce pollution levels in British rivers in 1973.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Reductions of pollution this year will result mainly from substantial increases in expenditure by local authorities and other dischargers on the treatment of dirty water to river authority requirements. Later, the reorganisation proposed in the Water Bill will facilitate the better use of the resources available.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when volunteers recently dredged the canal or river which passes through my constituency—it was in a disgraceful condition—they dragged out everything from beds and prams to a sawn-off shotgun? Will he take steps to give immediate and generous help to voluntary effort of that nature?

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to know that in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, as in many others, people are voluntarily joining together to improve their environment. That is something to be encouraged. However, the Question deals with the larger issue of pollution from discharges into the rivers.

Mr. John Hall: Can my hon. Friend estimate the total cost of reducing river pollution to an acceptable level?

Mr. Griffiths: Without notice I cannot give an exact figure. I can say that capital investment in cleaning rivers has risen by about 37 per cent. over the greatest figure


ever achieved under the last Government, and during this Parliament will achieve a 50 per cent. increase.

Mr. Oakes: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that where such schemes have been submitted by the local authorities they will not be monitored out in the counter-inflation legislation?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. Schemes for cleaning up the rivers will be put forward in the first instance by the river authorities and local authorities, and later by the new regional water authorities—if the House accepts the Water Bill.

Sir D. Renton: Was not the scheme for cleaning up rivers, announced by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the most important and most determined in our history? Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that that scheme is going forward with full effect?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. More than one mile in every 10 of the non-tidal rivers which were grossly polluted in 1970 has now been massively improved. That very welcome improvement is accelerating.

Mr. Harper: My question relates to the pollution of the rivers by detergents which are allowed to pour back into the rivers by manufacturing processes in the West Riding of Yorkshire. This pollution affects my constituency in particular. How do United Kingdom safety standards compare with those of our partners in the Common Market?

Mr. Griffiths: In terms of biodegradable detergents our standards have generally been higher. There have been recent negotiations seeking to achieve EEC standards which would have been lower than those in this country. Thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend's endeavours we have been able to persuade the whole of the Community to come up to the very high standards which we impose.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the provisions in the statute which give authority for local authorities

to impose conditions of their own in allowing discretionary improvement grants.

Mr. Channon: The only provision is that contained in Section 4(4) of the Housing Act 1969 which empowers a local authority to require, as a condition of paying the grant, that the works are carried out within such time, not being less than 12 months, as the local authority may specify.

Mr. Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that an Under-Secretary of State in his Department told the Environment and Home Office Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee on 24th and 31st January that in general these conditions are illegal? What does the Minister propose to do to stop the London Borough of Camden from imposing illegal conditions, forcing my constituents to refuse grants or run the risk of testing this in the courts? Why will he not take action?

Mr. Channon: It is not for me to interpret the law. That is for the courts. I am advised that the discretion given to local authorities under Part I of the 1969 Act gives them no power to impose any further conditions than the ones I outlined to the House a few moments ago. We are engaged in reviewing the whole question of older houses and improvements and I hope to report in due course.

Mr. Stallard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Camden has probably had more than its fair share of abuses with the improvement grant system? Many of us feel that the restrictions recently introduced are long overdue. Is he aware that a property in my constituency, in North St. Pancras, changed hands 15 months ago for £7,000, attracted an improvement grant of £9,640, and is currently on sale today for £112,000?

Mr. Channon: I cannot comment on a specific case. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me I shall be most interested to have the details. I must point out to the House that it is in the discretion of local authorities whether to give improvement grants. Presumably Camden, rightly or wrongly, thought that that was a good case.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Local authorities may have discretion whether to give a grant, but should they not carry out the


statute as it has been passed by this House? Whilst my hon. Friend cannot be expected to interpret the law, could he issue a circular giving his interpretation of the statute as it was intended?

Mr. Channon: A number of circulars about improvements have been issued from time to time. I would prefer to wait until the review is complete before risking another circular. I cannot interpret the law, but my advice is that local authorities do not have power to impose further conditions.

Mr. Blenkinsop: When will the hon. Gentleman come to a conclusion? Many of us wrote to him about cases six weeks or two months ago and are still awaiting replies. We must ensure that local authorities get on with their job.

Mr. Channon: I am delighted to inform the hon. Gentleman that I had the great pleasure of signing a letter to him this morning.

Sewage Disposal

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which rely upon the use of short sea outfalls for the disposal of sewage; and if he will take steps to encourage them to introduce other forms of disposal on environmental grounds.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My Department has been carrying out a survey of sea outfalls. As soon as this information has been compiled I will make it available to my hon. Friend.

Miss Fookes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is alarming that in 1973 there should be any such outfalls, with the hazard that may arise to children and adults using the beaches, and also the threat to wild life in certain circumstances?

Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that I cannot accept that proposition entirely. This country has a very large amount of sea space and a comparatively small amount of land space. Provided sewage is properly treated before its discharge into the sea it makes sense to use the purifying capabilities of the sea rather than large areas of land in very short supply.

Mr. Dalyell: Taking the outfall from the city of Edinburgh into the Firth of

Forth, for example, is there not a case for discussing with the Reclamation Industries Council various ways in which sewage can be treated and put to more constructive uses?

Mr. Griffiths: I think there is such a case, but the hon. Gentleman will know that studies have been made and that the Government's views have been made known about the whole question of recycling waste for useful purposes.

Rating Revaluation

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has offered officials producing the new rating valuation lists.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The valuation officers of the Inland Revenue are required by statute to prepare the new valuation lists in accordance with the provisions of the General Rate Act 1967. It is not for my right hon. and learned Friend to give them advice.

Mr. Roderick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that officials have taken the decision of their own volition, to have what is, in effect, industrial derating, and that domestic ratepayers are to pay more rates than they would previously have done? Will he acknowledge that the council house tenant and domestic ratepayers in general must pay in rates well above the 5 per cent. increase that the Prime Minister would like to see?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that officers of the Inland Revenue have done anything other than their full duty under the Act, which was brought in by the Labour Government. Material assistance has been given to mitigate the pressure on domestic ratepayers, and the whole series of discussions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have been having with local authorities may yet lead to decisions which will be made known to the House at an appropriate time.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ford Motor Company is likely to benefit to the extent of about £250,000 through the derating that is implicit for industry in this rating revaluation? The shortfall will have to be made up by domestic ratepayers in the London


boroughs of Havering and Barking. Does not he feel that in the light of this circumstance the Government should consider carefully whether they should proceed with rating revaluation at this time?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be glad to consider the specific case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If revaluation had not been postponed for 10 years by the last Government we should not be confronted with the substantial changes of value with which we are now having to cope.

"Non-Scheme" Ports

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the results of the inquiry conducted by the National Ports Council into the operations of the "non-scheme" ports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: I would refer my hon Friend to the reply given to a similar Question from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on 31st January.—[Vol. 849, c. 392.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now that it has become apparent that the Aldington-Jones recommendation on the redundancy scheme has cost the taxpayer £30 million, much of it going to perfectly able-bodied and fit dockers who have had to be replaced from the temporary register, it suggests that Lord Aldington and Mr. Jones were less than perfect in their conclusions? Will my right hon. Friend therefore treat with considerable scepticism any suggestion emanating from that quarter which would have serious financial effects on the smaller ports?

Mr. Peyton: I do not know of anyone who has been perfect in respect of recommendations having to do with the dock industry for many years. The Aldington-Jones Committee made a constructive attempt to get rid of a real sore—the existence of a temporary unattached register—and in particular to enable those who were sick or 55 and over to get out of the industry without further trouble. I think it has been a useful thing, although costly—I agree. My hon. Friend mentioned the smaller ports. The question of the boundaries of the national dock

labour scheme was not within the terms of reference of the National Ports Council's inquiry.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), there are men who have sacrificed the whole of their working lives in the Liverpool docks and are receiving nothing like the amount of money mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have people in my constituency who have done 45 years' hard work in the Liverpool docks but are being treated in a most parsimonious fashion?

Mr. Peyton: I do not know that that point arises on this Question.

Housing Policy

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his long-term housing policy.

Mr. Channon: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement on the Government's housing policy made by my right hon. and learned Friend in the housing debate on Tuesday 6th February.

Mr. Carter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement and the reply which he has just given are appallingly complacent, in view of the abysmal housing record of this Government and the skyrocketing house prices of last year? If the Government are serious in their intention to solve the housing problem, does he not think it time that they set a target figure for house building big enough to provide a sufficient number of houses to solve the problem of homelessness and to reduce rising house prices, which have gone unchecked for the past 18 months or so?

Mr. Channon: Anyone reading the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend would find it far from complacent. He made clear the Government's view on rising house prices and their housing policy. As for setting targets, I would have thought that the experience of the last Labour Government would lead anyone to the conclusion that it is most unwise to do so.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that an important element in his policy must be the


securing of an adequate supply of highly skilled labour for the industry? Is he aware that there is evidence of a scarcity of such labour? Does he realise that the number of apprentices entering the industry has fallen drastically in recent years, despite the protestations of the Government that workers in this industry are highly paid? Will he consider that aspect of the shortage?

Mr. Channon: Certainly. I am hoping shortly to have a meeting with the employers and trade unions to discuss this problem.

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend consider this shortage in the light of the fact that a bricklayer is required to spend three years learning his trade when most bricklaying jobs, except for the really complicated ones, could be carried out by a man after six months' training?

Mr. Heffer: You try it!

Mr. Channon: I detect a genuine wish on both sides of the House that progress should be made, and I will convey that feeling to the employers and the unions.

Mr. Crosland: The Minister referred to the speech by the Secretary of State last Tuesday. There must be some error here, because the House certainly missed any constructive parts of that speech. I can recall no positive suggestions. Can the hon. Gentleman remind the House of perhaps three brief points which the Secretary of State made—or two?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend's speech was so full of constructive ideas that it would be a pity to spoil it for the House by attempting to shorten it.

Bambergers Ltd. (Ports Council Report)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the report which he received from the National Ports Council arising from the meeting which the Council had on 29th November 1972 with the management and union representatives of Bambergers Ltd.

Mr. Peyton: Members of the National Ports Council met representatives of Bambergers Ltd. and others during their survey of non-scheme ports and wharves. I

received the council's report on the survey on 31st January and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming and answer a perfectly fair question? I thank him for what he has said. Can he confirm or deny that this firm will be forced to employ registered dock labour? If it is, will General and Municipal workers be able to qualify and continue their jobs?

Mr. Peyton: All I can say at the moment—and I repeat this for the hon. Gentleman—is that the question of the extension of the national dock labour scheme to cover the small ports and wharves was not within the remit of the National Ports Council inquiry.

Railway Property (Disposal)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to British Railways that when they dispose of surplus property they should give the appropriate local authority the opportunity to acquire the property at valuation.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that deep concern has been expressed in the Manchester area about the disposal by British Railways of the city's Central Station? By which company was this property acquired, and at what price? If it has already been re-sold, at what price was it re-sold and at what profit? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is a full inquiry into this disquieting affair? Will he agree that we must break down the wall of secrecy surrounding these deals affecting the disposal of public property for private profit?

Mr. Peyton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no veil of secrecy. As far as I am concerned the nationalised industries are encouraged to behave in a commercial manner.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a Press report saying that this public property was resold for a reported profit of £1 million within weeks of its purchase from British Railways? Is he satisfied with the valuation advice received by British Railways about this?

Mr. Peyton: I was asked the general question—

Mr. George Thomas: Answer the question.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman advises me to answer the question. I can recollect occasions when he managed to avoid doing so. The hon. Gentleman has now drawn to my attention a particular case and I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it has ceased to be a matter of general policy that local authorities are given the first option to buy from British Railways when they are disposing of property?

Mr. Peyton: That has not ceased to be a matter of general practice. It is still the practice for nationalised industries with surplus land to give local authorities the first opportunity of buying it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Play Groups (Goods and Services)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 in order to enable local authorities to include pre-school play groups in the list of public bodies specified in the Act.

Mr. Graham Page: Legislation is not necessary. My right hon. and learned Friend has power under the Act to designate by order public bodies to which local authorities may supply goods and services. He hopes to make a further order shortly, to extend the list of designated bodies. Pre-school play groups are certainly under consideration.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the recent correspondence which the Department has had with Berkshire County Council, informing it that it can no longer supply goods and services to play groups because it is excluded under the Act, is causing a great deal of concern and distress within the play group movement? Will

he expedite any decisions to change this, thus making these services available to play groups?

Mr. Page: It was the Berkshire case which raised the matter with which we are dealing. I hope that the order will be laid before the House shortly after the Easter Recess.

Tree-Planting Year

Mr. David James: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will mark tree-planting year by planting Australian gum trees in the central reservation area of motorways.

Mr. Peyton: There is insufficient space to accommodate large trees in the central reservation of motorways, but my Department will be carrying out extensive roadside planting in 1973.

Mr. James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what some hon. Gentlemen opposite may have thought, this is not a zany question? Is he aware that these trees grow extremely well in this country, that they are slender, and excellent windbreaks, and that as they do not shed their leaves they are an admirable defence against glare yet do not produce a skidding hazard? Is he further aware that they would bring about a considerable beautification of the country?

Mr. Peyton: I can assure my hon. Friend that it would never for one moment occur to me to suspect that he was asking a zany question.

Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the safety effects of growing shrubbery on the central reservations of motorways, as is done on the Continent?

Mr. Peyton: I have considered it. I have frequently been invited to consider almost every conceivable form of barrier. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the one we are using generally is best.

Bricks

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current state of supply of bricks.

Mr. Channon: Overall demand and supply are now approximately in balance.

Mr. Allason: Can my hon. Friend explain how it is that developers are being quoted nine months to a year for supplies of facing bricks?

Mr. Channon: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me details. I have been assured by the builders and brickmakers that there is no national problem, although there may be a few local ones. For example, the London Brick Company, which produces about 45 per cent. of the country's bricks, removed all restrictions on the acceptance of orders in December, and bricks are currently being delivered against orders being placed four to eight weeks ahead.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister explain why in recent months we have been importing bricks from the Continent?

Mr. Channon: I am saying that at the moment demand and supply are approximately in balance. Earlier last year there were local shortages, and some delays in obtaining bricks. This is not a national problem now, although there may be isolated examples of shortages in respect of specialist bricks which take time to obtain.

GAS INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Prentice: Before I ask my Private Notice Question, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? The Question was originally submitted to the Secretary of State for Employment, but I notice that it is to be answered by the Minister for Industry. I realise that you would not normally give a ruling about which Minister should answer a Question, but Members throughout the House are deeply concerned about the effects on their constituents of what is the most serious industrial situation we have had for a long time. In these circumstances, we should have had a reply from the Minister directly responsible for industrial relations.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has put that forward as a point of order, but I think that he knows that it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Prentice: I beg leave to ask the Minister for Industry a Question of which I have given notice to the Secretary of

State for Employment, namely, if he will make a statement on the dispute in the gas industry.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): As a result of industrial action British Gas has already had to stop the supply of town gas to several hundred large industrial users and to put in hand pressure reductions affecting a majority of domestic town gas consumers.
The full extent of industrial action and of its consequences has not yet been firmly established, but it is already clear that it will significantly interrupt production and create unemployment in other industries.
The management of the industry and the unions are working together to try to maintain a safe system. Nevertheless, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no risk to gas consumers. The potential risks are explosions from the effects of reduced gas pressure, millions of homes suffering discomfort and the threat to the welfare of the old and the ill.
The Government deplore this action and earnestly urge the gas unions to accept the restraints necessary to overcome inflation.

Mr. Prentice: I am afraid that the reply only confirms the impression given by the failure of the Secretary of State to answer at the Dispatch Box, that the Government welcome the chance to have a confrontation and are deliberately abdicating from their normal rôle, which is to try to conciliate in a serious dispute.
May I ask the Minister to confirm these two points for the record? First, that in the last five years workers in the gas industry have co-operated in massive technological changes which have had, among other things, the effect of bringing about a tremendous increase in productivity—I am told that there has been a 200 per cent. productivity increase in two years—redundancies to the extent of 22,500 men, cheaper gas for the consumer and a substantial surplus for the industry. Those facts should be put on the record and confirmed by the Minister. Secondly, that the industry has an exceptional record of co-operation and industrial peace and that there has not been any nationally organised industrial action since the National Joint Industrial Council was formed 54 years ago.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned that the unions were co-operating on the safety aspect. Will the hon. Gentleman go a bit further? Will he acknowledge that the decisions made about industrial action, which started at midnight, were deliberately made in a moderate form so as to conform to safety requirements? Will he confirm from his knowledge that the leaders of the unions have sent the strictest possible instructions to all their district officials about safety? Will he confirm that the union leaders have had talks with Age Concern and have worked out a six-point plan with that organisation for safeguarding the lives of elderly consumers?
Therefore, will the Minister pay a tribute to what the union leaders are trying to do in that respect instead of engaging in the crude propaganda in which he engaged on the radio yesterday when he had the effrontery to say that some of the most moderate trade union leaders in Britain were threatening the lives of members of the community?
May I make this appeal to the Government—and at least there is a Minister from the Department of Employment on the Front Bench—that they might try again one of the traditional techniques of resolving differences: by making conciliation services available, which have been refused so far, or by thinking again about the proposal for a court of inquiry, or by making a positive response to the unions' appeal yesterday, namely, that there was a possible approach by way of hard guarantees that the new Pay Board would consider the merits of this case at an early stage with a view to implementation early in phase 3?
Can the Minister confirm a report which reached me just before I rose to ask my Question—and therefore I have no knowledge about it—namely, that the TUC representatives may be meeting the Prime Minister today? If that is so, will the Government take the opportunity to discuss with the TUC a peaceful settlement of this dispute? Will they try to achieve peace in the dispute and not insist upon having a confrontation of their own choosing?

Mr. Boardman: I answered the Question because I have ministerial responsibility for safety, which I hope is the matter which concerns Members on both

sides of the House. It is a matter of immediate and direct concern. It was highly irresponsible of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) to suggest that we were seeking confrontation. I should have thought that in the present delicate situation, with the question of danger and safety being discussed, to make the suggestion which he made was quite unnecessary, unreasonable and irresponsible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I agreed that the workers in the gas industry had co-operated in bringing about massive changes. They have. However, I remind him that the offer which they have just refused represents a larger increase than they were offered last year. It is one of the largest increases made in the history of the gas industry. The suggestion that they have been offered nothing must be refuted, and I refute it now.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the scale of redundancies. During the time that the unions were saying that they were barred from discussions they were, at my request, continuing discussions about redundancy payment terms. I am glad to say that a week ago they concluded discussions with the Gas Corporation on improved redundancy terms, which are outside the restraints imposed in the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I agreed that the workers in the industry had an exceptional record in industrial relations. They have, and it is a great tragedy that that record is being broken now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the workers were taking all the action necessary to secure safety. I regret to say that they have not been able to guarantee that the risks and hazards will not be increased by the action that is being taken because, as they have pointed out, responsibility is delegated to various areas, and the action being taken in various areas is uneven and erratic. It was made clear that if their objective were to make the strike effective it could not be reconciled with making it safe, because to be effective it must operate on the consumers. To operate on the consumers must mean a reduction in gas pressure, which must mean hazards—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Therefore,


whatever protestations have been made about safety—and I accept that large numbers of gas workers are very concerned with what is happening and about the dangers—I cannot, regrettably, guarantee that safety is assured.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would pay tribute to the unions for their work. I would pay tribute to them for their past record, but I must express my deep regret at the course which they have now elected to take.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why there was not a court of inquiry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there can be no purpose in a court of inquiry when there is nothing to inquire into.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The workers have been offered by the Gas Corporation the maximum amount that is permitted under the White Paper. They have been given the choice of dividing that amount as they wish. There is no further room for a court of inquiry. They have been given the assurance, which is implicit in paragraph 33 of the White Paper and in what the Prime Minister said on 24th January, that they will have an opportunity during stage 2 to put their case to the Pay Board when it is established.

Mr. John Hall: In view of the confusion that seems to exist in the public mind about average earnings in the gas industry—a confusion which seems to be shared by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches—will the Minister tell the House what are the average earnings in the gas industry and how they compare with, say, average earnings in the electricity industry?

Mr. Boardman: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), the average earnings in the gas industry are £35·50—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many hours?"]—excluding those whose pay is affected by absence. The average earnings in the electricity industry in April 1972 were just under £35. The annual increase to the electricity industry is 8·6 per cent. per annum on average earnings in April 1972 of just under £35. The increase that has been offered to and rejected by the gas industry is about 8 per cent. of average earnings of £35·50.

Mr. Thorpe: In view of the gravity which the Minister rightly attaches to the situation, will he accept that there is no personal criticism of him when I ask whether he is aware that the House expected a statement to be made by a member of the Cabinet?
Secondly, are we to deduce from the Minister's statement that no conciliation is going on, that there are no talks and that there is no intention on the part of the Government that there should be such conciliation? If that is so, why not?
Finally, is the Minister aware that the people of this country are getting tired of industrial relations under both Governments on the basis of confrontation followed by capitulation, which solves nothing and will ultimately destroy the political fabric of the country?

Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any conciliation going on. I have made it clear to the General Secretary of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, and to other unions, that they have the right to put their case to the Pay Board when it is established. If they wish to discuss that aspect with a view to the removal of some uncertainty there appears to be on their part, I or my right hon. Friend will of course welcome those discussions. There is no room for manoeuvre. There is no room to move from the offer that has been made by the Gas Corporation, which is the limit permitted within the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about industrial relations generally. I am sure I shall have his support in saying that it has been the wish of the Government that the TUC should co-operate in these policies. Co-operation would have given the TUC the opportunity to express its point of view and have enabled the Government to have the benefit of its opinion and advice on various features. But the TUC has elected to withdraw, and that is not the Government's responsibility.

Mr. William Clark: Have the unions decided to pay strike pay? If not, is it not unfair that the British taxpayer should subsidise strikers in the form of supplementary benefits?

Mr. Boardman: I understand that it is an official strike. I am only reporting


what I have read, I think in the Press, but I think that some strike payment is being made under certain conditions.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that nothing whatever is to be gained by gagging a great and moderate trade union, of which I was once a member, and that, by refusing to allow the union even to state its case before a court of inquiry, he is creating anger and resentment at the very time when cool heads are needed?

Mr. Boardman: The position of the union is no different from that of every other union and every other industry in the public and private sectors. There is no question of gagging the union, selecting it, or treating it in any way differently from anyone else. I repeat that the union has been assured that it will have the opportunity of stating its case to the Pay Board when it is established.

Mr. John Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that until the passing of the Industrial Relations Act it would have been illegal for gas workers to strike? Secondly, will he inform the House whether the gas unions in calling this dispute are in contravention of Clause 5 of the Counter-Inflation Bill?

Mr. Boardman: The answer to the first question is that I believe that is so. The answer to the second question is, "No".

Mr. Palmer: Will the Minister say whether his Department has made any calculation of the extra load that is likely to be placed on the electricity supply system due to the gradual slowing of gas supplies and whether he is satisfied that the electricity supply system will have the generating capacity to meet it?

Mr. Boardman: Yes, estimates have been made of the additional demand that may be made upon the electricity system. There has been close co-operation and consultation between the two industries and the Government to try to meet such extra demands as they arise.

Mr. Burden: Does not it appear that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches consider this to be a special case? Have conditions of work and pay of gas workers deteriorated considerably since the Labour Government were in power? If they have not, and if this is a special case now, it must have been a special case then and why did the Labour

Government do nothing about it when they were in power?

Mr. Boardman: I cannot, off-hand, give the detailed figures, but I believe what my hon. Friend has said is absolutely right. The wages and terms compare relatively with those in operation when the Labour Government were in power.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Will the Minister say on what legal basis he was able to write to the trade unions and the Gas Corporation before the Government proposals on wages were published, to prevent negotiations taking place?

Mr. Boardman: The letter which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to Lord Cooper was in response to a letter from Lord Cooper to the Prime Minister, and it was the inquiry raised in that letter that my right hon. Friend answered. In the letter which I wrote to the Chairman of the Gas Corporation I pointed out that pending publication of the White Paper it would be inadvisable to raise expectations or to negotiate until that White Paper was published and the parties knew the parameters within which they could negotiate.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: How many firms have been affected and what is the number of workers in other industries who are prevented from undertaking gainful employment?

Mr. Boardman: I have no detailed information at the moment. The latest figure I have is that about 530 firms in the West Midlands region have had their gas supplies interrupted. There have been considerable interruptions in the East Midlands and in the Northern region. There has been a reduction of gas pressure in six of the gas regions which is likely to affect at least 3 million homes.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that his rigidity in this matter matches the rigidity of the Government's current policy since it removes the possibility of trade unions trying, through collective bargaining, to negotiate a settlement? Is he further aware that, in face of the standstill, the White Paper and the Counter-Inflation Bill, a ceiling has been set under which it is impossible for the unions to operate and that until that


ceiling is removed and free collective bargaining takes place industrial troubles will only escalate?

Mr. Boardman: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that last remark. He has taken part in the debates on the Government's counter-inflation policy and he knows the need to secure a growth in prosperity—an objective we all seek—to protect the old and weaker sections of society who have been so vulnerable to the pressures of the strong.
On the question of the power to negotiate, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have moved from phase 1 to phase 2, and that we shall move into phase 3. The Government have already said that it will be possible during phase 3 to look at any anomalies which have been created. Therefore, we would welcome the cooperation of the Trades Union Congress, but so far, regrettably, this has not been forthcoming. I hope that it will be.

Mr. Waddington: Will my hon. Friend invite the public to be on their guard against a ploy that is often used during strikes—and it was used during the miners' strike—when people appear on television to protest that they have tiny minimum wages when those wages bear no relation whatever to actual earnings? Will he take every opportunity to stress within the terms of the White Paper that this union and other unions can help the low paid if they wish to do so?

Mr. Boardman: Yes, it is important that the figures are put in perspective. I have already given the average earnings——

Mrs. Renée Short: Tell us how many hours.

Mr. Boardman: I am asked about hours, but we are now comparing the present rates with rates which were current when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister accept it from me, as somebody with 30 years' experience in the gas industry, that there is no set of employees more consumer-conscious than are the gas industry employees, and that they will resent the Minister's inference that it is only the Government who are concerned about the wellbeing of the elderly? Does

he not agree that his provocative attitude yesterday, and his truculent performance this afternoon at the Government Dispatch Box, is calculated only to inject heat into a situation in which at the moment there is a lot of anger, but it is cool anger. I hope the Minister will reconsider some of the things he has said in the last 24 hours in order that he may prevent heat being injected into the situation? Will he not give further consideration to the just appeal made by my union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, that this matter should be referred to a court of inquiry? If, however, the Government feel that they cannot agree to that suggestion, will they give some assurance that, at the end of phase 2, there will be a clear recognition of the special case of these workers, bearing in mind that in a five-year period when industry generally increased productivity by 25 per cent., the gas workers increased their productivity by 200 per cent., accompanied by 22,500 redundancies?

Mr. Boardman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very large number, and no doubt the vast majority, of members of the gas union are very concerned about the hazards about which I have been talking. The reports that are coming in today show that in regions there are a very large number of workers who have been brought up in the high traditions of the gas industry, who have a loyalty to it and a regard for safety considerations, and who are extremely concerned about the procedures and methods by which it is suggested they should operate during this difficult period. I hope that the attitude of those workers, to whom I pay tribute, will prevail and not the attitude of those who perhaps look on this matter as a battleground.

Mr. Edward Short: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition regard it as utterly irresponsible by the Government, as well as demonstrating a wanton disregard for this House and the seriousness of the situation, that the Secretary of State has not come to the House to make a statement? Could we have an assurance, from the Leader of the House or from the Minister for Industry, that tomorrow the Secretary of State will be man enough to come here and make a statement on the situation and not send the Minister for Industry, who has done his best in the


last 24 hours to stir up the situation—no doubt on the instructions of the Prime Minister—and to make an already serious situation more serious and more intractable?

Mr. Boardman: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that until industrial action started, with the consequences to which I have already referred, there was no question of any statement being made that could be in any way so construed. And since industrial action has been taken, it has been the Government's right and duty to warn the public of the hazards to ensure that everything possible is done to preserve public safety and to make the appeal we have made. I again make an appeal for good sense, which has so long been a feature of this union, to be restored—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) may feel that the stirring up has come from his side of the House. The Government's position has been absolutely clear. The gas industry is having no better and no worse treatment than is any other industry in the public or private sector. The terms which have been offered to the gas industry compare not unfavourably with those offered to other industries, and they know that they will have the opportunity to put the matter to the Pay Board. We feel that this is fair and proper and it is an attitude which the public as a whole support.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the other business of the House, which includes an Opposition Supply Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Value Added Tax on Children's Clothing not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I think I am correct in saying that this motion is debatable. In seeking to debate it, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of minorities in this House and also as the protector of the rights of the Opposition—rights which hon. Members on both sides of the House have a very great interest in preserving.
I submit to you, Sir that this motion on the Order Paper requiring the important debate on the subject of value added tax on childrens' clothing to be finished by seven o'clock is a gross interference with the rights of the Opposition. Time is being taken away because the Government have tabled a Private Member's Bill for discussion after seven o'clock. It may be argued that this is not the case, but the Government are convicted of doing this because, since the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill has a star against it on the Order Paper, it can be assumed that it is a Government Order of the Day. Therefore the Government have taken away the rights of the Opposition on a very important day.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker—and this is why I appeal to you—is that these circumstances could arise only where Government and Opposition were in agreement. This is an unwholesome situation to any private Member of the House of Commons. Further, as I understand it, the Government are giving to Opposition Members an opportunity which they do not give their own back benchers, because the Government have chosen to make this Private Member's Bill a Government Bill and the Opposition have agreed to this device.
The motion that we are now debating can be debated for as long as you, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to allow. As I see it, it would be possible for us to have three Divisions. We may discuss this very important motion until such time as it is necessary to move the Closure. That will be one Division. Then


there will be another Division on the main Question. That means that 20 minutes will have gone. I see that after this motion there is to be a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule concerning badgers. Some of us may wish to say a few words about that. Thus, before we even reach the Opposition's Supply time there will have been nearly half an hour's delay.
You, Mr. Speaker, are the protector of the interests of the Opposition and of private Members. I appeal to you to do what you can to see whether this motion can be withdrawn, as it should be.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Before we are drowned in the crocodile tears of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I do not accept that motion.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: Before the House agrees to this motion which I take it, is necessary in order that time may be found for a Private Member's Bill later in the day, I think that we are entitled to ask for one or two reassurances from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
While I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball), I have no wish to join him as a champion of the rights of the Opposition and their entitlement to their time on these occasions, though it is a respectable argument. However, some of us have been concerned, and not only in this Parliament, with the treatment of Private Members' Bills. Some of us were worried under the Administration of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and again last October that the Government should have been prepared to give selective treatment to certain Private Members' Bills at the expense of others.
I shall not go back into past history, but when the Private Member's Bill concerned with vasectomy narrowly failed on a Friday, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, in what admittedly was a rather special case, took steps to ensure that it should be given Government time to complete its remaining stages. A number of us were not too happy about that, and

we raised the matter with the then Leader of the House and obviously he took the point. I received a letter from him last October giving fairly explicit assurances that he regarded the instance in question as a very special case and that it was unlikely to be repeated. It is not very long since last October. Here we have another instance of selective treatment being given to a Private Member's measure.
I do not go into the merits. I simply say that there are strict rules embodied in the Standing Orders of the House about private Members' legislation and the amount of time that it should have. If those rules exist I believe they should be kept and then people will know where they are. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give us some reassurance about how he intends to handle these matters in future because there is real disquiet among Government back benchers. I do not make too much of it, but apparently last Friday week's proceedings were attended by a certain amount of disturbance from the Public Gallery, and that does not square with the proper dignity of proceedings of this House.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: It is right to put on record that the Opposition are appreciative of the way in which the Government have handled this matter. Those right hon. and hon. Members who were present last Friday week will know what happened when you, Mr. Speaker, because of the rules of the House, were unable to accept a closure motion on a matter concerning hon. Members on both sides of he House.
When our Supply Day came up, in the usual way we selected the matter that we wished to discuss and we asked the Government whether the debate could be arranged to conclude at seven o'clock in order that the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill might come forward for normal debate and be decided one way or the other at ten o'clock. In suggesting that, I thought I was being helpful to the House.
This is Opposition time. I make it clear that this proposition came from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his co-operation

4.5 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I appreciate the reasonable manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) have raised this matter. I want also to tell the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) how grateful I am for the view that he has taken.
On the Friday before last, we were faced with a very delicate and difficult situation of the kind which confronts Leaders of the House from time to time. I believe that it was in the interests of the House as a whole that in this very exceptional case some arrangement should have been made to meet what were the wishes of a great many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides and to avert what could have been a difficult situation to the House as a whole. It was with that in mind that I said plainly from this Dispatch Box that the Government could not give time of their own, and it was then that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey made his suggestion.
I believe that it is in the interests of Governments of all political parties that we do our best to stick rigidly to the rule which has been made. Once we

start to transgress a rule we get into the difficulties about which a number of my hon. Friends have been telling me in the past few days. I do not believe that we should make new rules which lead us into more trouble than is involved by sticking to existing rules. In this case I believe the House has been better served by the action which has been taken. But I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that these are very exceptional circumstances and that they will treat them as such.

Mr. William Clark: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, will he answer one question? It has been the tradition that Private Members' Bills are subject to a free vote. May we be assured that both sides of the House will have a free vote?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that that is a question for me to answer. I should be very surprised if they did not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Motion relating to Value Added Tax on Children's Clothing not later than Seven o'clock.

PROTECTION OF BADGERS BILL

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the taking or killing and the attempted taking or killing of badgers on land without the prior written consent of the owner of that land.
The House will see that this is a modest proposal since it does not provide comprehensive protection for badgers and a good case could be made for that. However, some action is needed urgently. I propose, therefore, only that which I regard as generally acceptable. I believe that this will receive general approval rather than the obstructive doubts which a wider protection might arouse. That response could extinguish hopes for protection which would mean the likely disappearance of badgers from many areas in which the species has already lived for many thousands of years.
Generally the badger is not scarce to a critical extent. In the 1940s and 1950s the population increased. But there is now a very severe decline. This is particularly marked in East Anglia, parts of the South-East, in the counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cheshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. There is decline in other areas perhaps, but this is a little less severe today than in those areas mentioned.
My authorities for that assessment are the Mammal Society County Recorders and Dr. Ernest Neal one of our leading naturalists and the acknowledged expert upon this species. He believe that a real measure of protection has now become urgently necessary.
Most people may only see a badger in a zoo or dead upon the road. In its natural surroundings it is an impressive and attractive creature and the spectacle of cubs playing is fascinating. Yet some people view the badger with a strange hatred. It is from those people that the most savage cruelty is inflicted and the survival of the species threatened in many of our regions.
Yet the badger is usually harmless to man's interests. The Forestry Commission welcomes the species and offers protection to it through its byelaws. Unfortunately, the penalty for infringe-

ment is small and there is some evidence now that the offenders are likely to continue their offensive practices.
In areas where the population is in decline the principal reason appears to be deliberate persecution. I had better briefly describe the practice of digging. Small terriers, which are often on sale, are sent into a set. Their job is to prevent the badger from moving away. Frequently the dogs are injured. Usually there is noise and towards this noise the people above ground dig. When the badger is within reach tongs are used and the animal is literally dragged out.
If the business ended there it would not be so disgusting, but frequently the badger is not humanely killed. It commences to suffer a long period of dog baiting and torment. In order to improve the chances of the dogs, the animal is often viciously injured beforehand. One case recently brought to my notice involved a badger having a broken lower jaw before the dog baiting began—in order to improve the dogs' chances.
The badger is a formidable opponent. It is retiring and shy and extremely shortsighted, but it is ferocious when roused and provides a great deal for sport for people who are disposed to this kind of activity.
I am reluctant to describe all that may happen—for I know what does happen—in badger digging. Suffice to say that often if a set is so large that digging is impracticable, the people concerned place snares and perhaps wipe out the whole population of the set. Only last autumn, as a further example of the attitude of badger diggers, after a set had been dug unsuccessfully, a gin trap was placed there at the side of a children's nature trail in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
The Bill does not provide a complete answer for this kind of practice. However, there may be times—I am sure that many people would concede this—when the badger could remotely be a nuisance, and therefore there is scope within the Bill for humane treatment in the control and removal of badgers where necessary.
I express the wish—I think that the Bill would provide for it—that land owners, whether private or public, will view the badger with approval and tolerance and not give permission lightly for the removal which is allowed.
Any doubt about the harmless effects of the badger upon man's interests have been largely dispelled by the work of several naturalists in recent years, not least of whom is my constituent and friend, Dr. Richard Paget. Their researches, in which he has played a large part, offer extensive evidence that the badger's diet makes it a welcome neighbour for man. There may be exceptions, but basically the forester and the farmer ought to welcome this animal.
Given our present knowledge of the species, it is clear that the badger in no way merits the persecution which he is currently receiving. I have watched this animal over at least 10 years and can confirm the evidence which naturalists throughout the country are now providing. I can offer not only my confirmation of the merits of the species but also my suggestion to the House that it would be justified in viewing the Bill and the animal favourably.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Clark, Mr. Eric Cockeram, Mr. David James, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. William Price, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. Cecil Parkinson and Mr. Terry Davis.

PROTECTION OF BADGERS

Bill to prohibit the taking, or killing and the attempted taking or killing of badgers on land without the prior written consent of the owner of that land, presented accordingly, and read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY] considered.

Orders of the Day — VALUE ADDED TAX (CHILDREN'S CLOTHING)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I beg to move,
That this House considers that value added tax should not apply to children's clothing.
Since the motion was put down the Government have put down an amendment to it which would seek to leave the whole matter to the Budget, but it should be said that the whole House, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary, who is to reply, will be aware that the Chancellor deliberately took power in the last Finance Act to zero rate anything that he wishes without waiting for a Budget. Indeed, we all know that this is a simple, tactical manoeuvre to avoid a vote on the issue, but the country will see the vote as being for or against taxing children's clothing. That is the issue to which I shall be addressing myself.
I find it hard to believe that anyone given a choice as to what should be taxed, would deliberately choose to tax children's clothing. So I hope that I carry with me all hon. Members on both sides of the House on the general principle of not wishing to introduce a tax on children's clothing. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer changes his mind, he will have the doubtful honour of being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax children's clothing. He will need better arguments than those yet advanced to justify such action.
Before dealing with those arguments, I should like to mention briefly children's shoes. The House will know that the Chancellor agreed to an inquiry to avoid a revolt from his own side of the House The medical case was very well made out in the debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly by the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), Reading (Dr. Vaughan) and Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) in


excellent speeches. It would be an appalling insult to the House and to those hon Members who spoke in that debate if the Chancellor did not now zero rate children's shoes, particularly after having told us how much he had been influenced by the debate. Certainly tinkering about with some medically approved shoe would not be enough.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely the hon. Gentleman is leaping to conclusions. It is difficult for the House to make up its mind before having read the report which is not yet published.

Mr. Barnett: Even without the report, I thought that the hon. Lady, in view of what she said in the debate, would not go back on the words she used——

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am not going back on them.

Mr. Barnett: —when she made it clear that there was a vital need to have children's shoes zero rated.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——

Mr. Barnett: May I finish? I have re-read the hon. Lady's speech with great care.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——

Mr. Barnett: Please let me finish. The hon. Lady should not get so angry. She may do herself some harm. I have reread her speech with great care. I agree that she accepted her right hon. Friend's decision to set up an inquiry into having children's shoes zero rated. She appeared to be saying that she was prepared to accept that certain types of shoes should be zero rated, but I should think that most hon. Members would prefer all children's shoes to be zero rated.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——

Mr. Barnett: Perhaps I may finish this point. The hon. Lady may disagree with that, but that is my view.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, had that been my view there would have been no point in setting up a committee. I have never asked for—and never would—the zero rating of all children's shoes, because I believe that some are positively physically

harmful. What I wanted and achieved was the setting up of a committee to find out which shoes were medically useful for children and for them not to be taxed.

Mr. Barnett: The last thing in the world that I should ever seek to do is to misrepresent the hon. Lady's views, but what I was saying was, to a considerable extent, based on what she said during that debate about the need to zero rate children's shoes.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Those that were medically approved.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Lady and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are entitled to their quibble, and I use the word deliberately because if the hon. Lady thinks that the Chancellor set up the inquiry to do other than avoid being defeated in the debate I must tell her that she does not understand the workings of the House. However, the hon. Lady will no doubt tell us what kind of carefully medically approved shoes she would like to see children wearing. I shall leave it to her to present her own case. I shall leave her to say what kind of shoes she would like her children to wear, but I know what kind I should like mine to wear. I shall say little more about children's shoes because I feel that the House and the country have made their views known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I now come to the main burden of the Chancellor's case about taxing children's clothing. He refused to zero rate children's clothes largely because, he said, of the unscrupulous traders who take advantage of the size problem under purchase tax. He went on to say that because VAT is a broad based tax he must include children's clothing within it. I have had an opportunity of discussing the size problem with a number of ladies', gentlemen's and children's clothing manufacturers, buyers in large and small retail shops and stores, and mail order houses, but before coming on to deal with their views perhaps I may make one last comment on this broad based comprehensive tax which is free from anomalies. That is how it was described by the Chancellor and his cohorts on the Treasury Bench.
I have a theory about why they described it in that way. It is that the


Chancellor's first intention was to have a genuinely broad based comprehensive tax—and that would have been free from anomalies because it would have taxed everything including food, housing, fuel and transport. I have no doubt that that is what the Chancellor has it in mind to do eventually under the cloak of harmonisation. But the facts of life prevented him from doing that. The trouble is that all the briefs were prepared for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends as if it were still a broad-based tax. We know that it is nothing of the sort. It is riddled with anomalies, as we showed in our lengthy debates on the Finance Bill, and that cannot be used as an excuse for not zero rating children's clothing.
I now come to the size argument. I believe that the Chancellor was wrong when he talked about unscrupulous traders using the size problem to escape purchase tax. According to the best information that I have been able to obtain, most respectable retailers, including well-known big name stores and large leading manufacturers, connive together to avoid purchase tax. Indeed, they frequently use what is known in the trade as "tolerance" in sizes to ensure that so-called children's sizes can be sold to adults free of tax. It is impossible to tell whether the volume of tax avoided is 20 per cent., 25 per cent., or more, but I willingly concede that a large amount of tax is evaded in this way. I use the word "evaded"—that is to say, the illegal version of the word—because that is precisely what it is.
I understand that many large manufacturers are compelled to comply with the demands of retailers—the large ones in particular—to supply adult clothing as children's clothing for fear of losing business. I find it shameful that this deliberate tax evasion is used by the Chancellor as an excuse to tax children's clothing of all sizes instead of doing something about these trading methods.
I admit at once that it would not be easy to deal with this problem. As I understand it, it cannot be done on a matter of lengths. The advice that I have received—and I presume that it is available to the Chancellor—is that he will need to act on chest measurements or, as they say in the ladies' trade, bust measurements.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the advice available to him may not be as all-embracing and comprehensive as he imagines? Will he also accept that chest—or bust measurements, as the case may be—are—and have been for the last 30 years—used as well as length in a hopeless endeavour to define what is children's clothing?

Mr. Barnett: I am aware of the problem, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, as he nearly did in his last speech on this subject. The hon. Gentleman's greatest experience—indeed, his only experience as I understand it—is in rainwear. I have been talking to dress——

Mr. Fidler: Mr. Fidler rose——

Mr. Barnett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence. I have been talking to dress, casual wear and trouser suit manufacturers. I have been talking to all kinds of clothing manufacturers, so I have a reasonable view of the matter.

Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, apart from manufacturing rainwear and coats, I have been involved personally in manufacturing skirts and other articles of men's and ladies' apparel. In addition, I have served as Chairman of the Garment Manufacturing Section of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. In that capacity I dealt with all kinds of garments and I therefore speak with some authority.

Mr. Barnett: I am obliged for the commercial, but as far as I am aware the hon. Gentleman's main interest was in producing rainwear. Is that not true?

Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman has invited me to take up some more of his time. When I was Chairman of the Garment Manufacturing Section of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce I was interested in the production of all types of clothing, and not merely rainwear. If I get an opportunity to speak later in the debate I shall give the House some examples based on my experience.

Mr. Barnett: I think that we have had enough from the hon. Gentleman. I had the unfortunate experience of being on a local council with the hon. Gentleman, and I heard him at great length


upon many subjects. No doubt he is an expert on children's clothing and on everything else on which he cares to speak. I am prepared to accept that he is an expert on every aspect of clothing—ladies', gentlemen's, children's, old women's, young women's, any kind that he cares to talk on. I do not think that I could be more generous than that. I was talking about the difficulty that the Chancellor would have in dealing with this problem, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with anything that I said before he decided that he had to intervene.
The position now is that coats up to a chest size of 37⅛in. are classed as children's clothing and are not subject to tax. Dresses up to a 36in. bust measurement are also not taxable. I hasten to add that that is the garment measurement, and not the body measurement, which gives some idea of the complexity of the problem. Garments of that size could be, and are, used by a large number of slim women. If the Chancellor decided to reduce the measurement to 32in. for exemption from tax, I am told that most women—other than Twiggy and a few others—would have to pay tax. The difficulty about that is that it would immediately result in a large number of 11-, 12- and 13-year olds having to pay tax. That is to say, some larger young boys and girls would have to pay tax. That is just one additional disadvantage of being large.
But I must say to the Chancellor that I would have thought that even that situation would be better than having one-to-10 year-olds paying tax as well, which is precisely what the Chancellor would have us do. If the Chancellor feels that he cannot persuade scrupulous firms to stop conspiring with manufacturers—for it is surely a conspiracy to avoid tax that these firms are engaged in—let him not use that as an excuse for taxing babies and young children. That is precisely what he is doing.

Mr. Adam Butler: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. To make sure that I understood his argument on this case of alleged conniving and conspiracy, may I ask him whether he said that about 20

per cent. or 25 per cent. of purchase tax on clothing was avoided because of this?

Mr. Barnett: No. I said that I was not sure of the percentage. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) knows the percentage. He is absolutely certain. He knows about every aspect of the clothing industry. He quoted the figures 25th per cent. to 30 per cent. The Chancellor said he did not know. What I said was that it could be as much as 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., but that I did not know what the precise percentage was.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking simply to obviate the hardship to families, would all the complications that he has referred to not be obviated if, instead of bringing forward this motion just before the Budget, when clearly it can hardly be sensibly argued—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Minister cannot give away Budget secrets now. If the hon. Gentleman were to join in the effort that I have been making to persuade the Chancellor and his hon. Friends to assist these families, not in this indirect way where there are so many loopholes and which will not help the families whom we most wish to help, but essentially by improving FIS and family allowances—

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Lady and the Chancellor must not try to get off the hook in that way. There is nothing to prevent the Chancellor telling us today, or last month or the month before, that he has already, with 47 regulations since the last Budget, zero rated and made all sorts of changes. It is absolute hypocritical nonsense to suggest that the Chancellor has got to wait for the Budget. It is absurd to suggest at this stage that the Chancellor should do something about FIS, when the hon. Lady knows very well what happened to her Government's initial proposal, through the late Lain Macleod, that family allowances should be increased. There was no suggestion of any FIS, which in any case is not taken up by anything like the number of families that she suggests. All she is trying to do is to wriggle out of facing up to the problem whether or not children's clothes should be taxed, which is all that we are debating today.

Mr. Healey: The Tory Twiggy!

Mr. Barnett: I do not know that I can go along with everything that my right hon. Friend says.
I now come to the question of the yield from the tax. The Treasury statement on the question of the yield from this tax is that no upper estimates can be given. I have, therefore, tried to make my own estimate of the loss of yield which there might be from zero rating childrens' clothing. The family expenditure survey of 1971 states that children's clothing represents 1·1 per cent. of total household expenditure. From that, one can obtain some kind of idea of the amount of money spent on children's clothing.

Mr. Fidler: Mr. Fidler rose——

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is is such an expert on everything, including family expenditure surveys, but I have heard him at such great length on so many occasions that I hope he will forgive me if I do not give way to him again.

Mr. Fidler: Mr. Fidler rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman would be best advised not to be too persistent. He might lose out later.

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to lose out in any way, because he has so much expertise to impart to the House.
The estimate that I have made on the yield is 10 per cent. of £370 million, or about £37 million. It may be £10 million more or less, or even £20 million, but it would be incredible if any Chancellor could on 5th April reduce taxation for those at the highest end of the income scale by £300 million whilst at the same time refusing to allow this amount to relieve children's clothing from tax. The cost to a family with three children would be rather more than appears to be the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), with his customary under-statement, estimated in the last debate that it would be in the region of 19p. This does not take into account the way in which retailers calculate their margins. Now, many of them add their

profit margins to the cost, including purchase tax, to get a real return on sales. The margin can vary from 50 per cent. on cost, to give one-third on sales, to 100 per cent. to give 50 per cent. on sales. Under VAT they should only put the margin on cost, excluding VAT, which they recover, unlike purchase tax. That is what they should do.
If they do as I am told many will be doing, the average family will be paying up to 100 per cent. more than the actual VAT because margins will continue to be put on costs plus VAT, and the rebate will be pocketed. That is what will be happening in the case of many retailers.
We know that the weights and measures inspectors and some of the 300 staff of the Price Commission, while checking on prices and profit margins of 1 million traders, are supposed to keep a specially watchful eye on retailers' profit margins during the first three months of VAT. I always thought that the weights and measures inspectors had other jobs as well. I do not know how experienced they are likely to be in coping with profit margins and costings of small retailers. I would be interested to know from the Financial Secretary what training these officials will undergo for their arduous tasks and how many hours of the day, and night, they will work to keep up with the average retailer of whom, according to the 1971 survey, there were 485,346. That is excluding the service industries and market stalls. I do not know whefther they will go round the market stalls as well, but if they do, the best of luck to them.
The information given in answers to Questions and from talking especially to small firms makes it clear that the whole VAT operation is miles behind schedule. The latest official figures to the end of last week, which were given in reply to a Question of mine yesterday, are that 950,000 applications were made for registration out of 1·5 million estimated traders. But this again is a fiddle. It was a fiddled answer. I did not ask for the number of applications. I asked for the numbers registered. In the past the answers that I got gave the number of people registered, but I did not get that answer this time. I was told the number of applications—950.000.
Even at that level, 950,000 leaves over 500,000 still to register. Even if they all send in their applications tomorrow morning, I find it very hard to understand how on earth the Customs and Excise will be able to cope with the whole of that before 1st April 1973.
There is also the question of the regional figures. In the Question that I tabled I asked what was the position in the regions, and I was told that the information is not available—very strange. Where do the Government get the figures from? From where do they get the figure of 950,000 applications? I should have thought that it was the regions which submitted the information to them. I cannot imagine that the Treasury is not getting a copy of every registration form which is sent and then doing the calculations from that. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look again at that answer, which was of doubtful significance and difficult to understand.
The figures show that the whole of trade and industry will be in chaos on 1st April, and, as I say, I doubt that all could be registered in time even if, by some means or other, all the applications were plonked on the Customs and Excise desk tomorrow morning.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am trying to relate this part of the hon. Gentleman's argument to the motion. If his rather sweeping claims about the state of registration are anywhere near accurate, does he think that acceptance of the motion would assist the position?

Mr. Barnett: Yes, I would far rather that the decision were taken and that the Chancellor postponed VAT, which would give more time to consider how he would zero rate children's clothing. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is not interested in the facts which show the sort of chaos likely on 1st April, but I thought that the House would be interested to know what the situation was.
The Chancellor should now take the sensible course and announce a postponement. It would be outrageous to do as he plans, to penalise hundreds of thousands of small retailers just because they do not find this monstrous tax and the registration form as easy to understand as the Chancellor does. What is more, to introduce such a tax on child-

ren's clothing at any time would be grossly unfair, but to do so at the very time when he is introducing statutory control of incomes is utter folly such as even this Government have not yet exceeded. It seems certain to lead to the mothers' revolt which has been widely forecast. One does not need a vivid imagination to foresee the effect when husbands faced with compulsory pay restraint are told by their wives of the increased cost of children's clothing.
Inflation is the major problem of our age. Many will regard a deliberate increase in the price of clothing for the youngest in the land as an odd way to cure it. I ask the Chancellor and his right hon. and hon. Friends to think again and accept the motion.

4.42 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will give full consideration to all representations made in respect of any aspect of taxation, direct or indirect, and appreciates that no statement on any such matter should be made in advance of the Budget.
As hon. Members may know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought it right to attend a council meeting of the EEC Finance Ministers in Brussels for immediate discussions on the implications of the financial changes which have taken place in the last few days. The meeting was due to start a few minutes ago. I am sure that the House appreciates that, as matters of great concern to the United Kingdom are being considered, my right hon. Friend felt it right to be present personally. But he has asked me to say how sorry he is that he is not able to attend this debate.
I believe it to be true that attempts to alter the traditions of the House often reveal the reasons why those traditions have been long established. This has sometimes become apparent when changes have been made quite deliberately to alter our procedures. It is equally true of those traditions which we scarcely notice, and one of these is that, in the period immediately before Budget day, Treasury Ministers say nothing on any aspect of taxation which might anticipate or seem to anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement. There are good reasons


for this, of which, I am sure, it is not necessary to remind the House. All Chancellors of the Exchequer have recognised the wisdom of maintaining that position.

Mr. Denis Healey: The Chancellor has already made 34 changes in the provisional arrangements for value added tax, all of which affect the yield, including one announced on the back pages of The Times yesterday. Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining that children's clothing is the only aspect of value added tax which is not open to a decision, like the others, at any time the Chancellor wishes to take it?

Mr. Higgins: That is not what I am maintaining.

Mr. Healey: Answer the question.

Mr. Higgins: I am about to answer it, but I cannot do so unless I am allowed to open my mouth for more than a second. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) said that there had been orders for zero rating, giving exemptions, and so on. That is not so. There have been a number of Treasury orders—for example, those on second-hand goods, terminal markets and disallowance of inputs—which were anticipated in last year's Budget debates. Those orders have been laid, as, I think, the House thought it right that they should be, but broad questions of coverage are rightly regarded as budgetary matters.
Generally speaking, all Chancellors of the Exchequer have taken the view that that is the right position to adopt. As I understand it, under the old rules, Supply Days related to the voting of Supply and, accordingly, debates had to be related to the question of expenditure, so that any proposal for a debate on taxation would have been out of order. It was only in 1966 that the rules were changed so that any subject could be debated on a Supply Day, and I have not been able to discover any subsequent Supply Day debate on any taxation matter in the pre-Budget period.
The entry of Treasury Ministers into their traditional purdah in no way inhibits hon. Members or persons outside from making representations to the Chancellor of the day. Indeed, if anything, it signifies an intensification of such repre-

sentations. Therefore, on the important question of VAT and children's clothing, as on many other important fiscal matters, responsible people and responsible newspapers are now putting forward their views for the Chancellor's consideration.
If that were what the Opposition were doing today in a Supply Day debate, it would certainly be unusual but it would be a responsible line to take. The Opposition could have put down a motion calling on the Chancellor to consider this question, or another, so that their views, like those of others, could be taken fully into account before the Budget. But, as the House can judge from the Order Paper and the speech of the hon. Member from Heywood and Royton, that is not what the Opposition have chosen to do on this occasion. Instead, they have deliberately put down a motion, which I understand they are likely to press to a Division, to take what amounts to a specific decision on a particular aspect of taxation in isolation from all other questions of taxation, and they have done this at a time when Budget day itself is less than three weeks off.

Mr. Brian Walden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want these constitutional matters to be misrepresented. Let me give him an example to show that the doctrine which he is advancing has no traditional validity whatever. In 1853, Mr. Gladstone, the best Chancellor this country ever had, made a public speech on the malt tax two months before his Budget. He was challenged on it, and, very rarely for him, he made a joke. He said, "Purdah does not imply chastity. If I choose to speak on this country's fiscal affairs and to give some indication of my intentions, I may do so unless it can be proved that commercial advantage accrues". The hon. Gentleman has to prove that in some way a commercial advantage could accrue to somebody before he can shield himself in his yashmak.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has used exotic terms to make his point. I am sure that he does not wish me to misrepresent the constitutional point—I do not think that I should put it as high as that—and I do not wish him to misrepresent it, either. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to


Gladstone in 1853. I think it is the case that successive Chancellors have generally taken the view that it is sensible to deliver a Budget statement which takes account of the various factors which need to be regarded as a whole.
Instead of making representations in the usual manner, the Opposition have chosen today to do something without precedent. I can find no precedent for a Supply Day debate of this kind. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints agrees with me. I understand that it was out of order until a few years ago, and there appears to have been no such debate since that position changed. The Opposition have chosen to act in a way which, regardless of the merits of the case, we can only describe as wholly irresponsible.
Even after some years in the House, I am still somewhat surprised that a former First Lord of the Treasury—the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson)—and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who evidently aspires to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, could have put their names to such a motion. In those circumstances, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and some Labour Members, will support the amendment.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my position. He said that the Chancellor welcomes at this stage in his purdah representations from groups in the country who have a view. All that the Opposition are seeking to do is to invite the House to express a view, not to bind the Government, but to say that the House considers that children's clothes should be free of tax. Everything that the Minister has said so far seems to me to be liberating his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote exactly as they feel, so that he has a clear idea of the real views of the House, without the application of party Whips. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now confirm my view of the implications of what he has said.

Mr. Higgins: I shall be very happy to spell out the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's motion. He is clearly now trying to wriggle out of the position into which he has got himself. He could have tabled a motion asking for con-

sideration of this or that topic. But he has put down a motion tantamount to asking for a decision on the matter, and I understand that he intends to press it to a Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am saying that he is wriggling, that he is trying to get himself out of the position into which he has got himself. He could have made representations. Throughout, we have given great thought and care to considering all representations made to us on value added tax. But it is a vastly different matter, less than three weeks before a Budget, to table an unprecedented motion of this kind for debate on a Supply Day, and then to force it to a Division.
That being so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel it right to support the amendment. I believe that it is a necessary amendment, whatever views may be held on the merits of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton.
Naturally, as the amendment makes absolutely clear, my right hon. Friend will, as is his duty, take fully into account all the representations made on children's clothes and VAT, on various other aspects of VAT, and indeed on all aspects of taxation. The House will not expect me to go further than that clear assurance.
I trust that because I intervene only briefly in the debate, no doubt more briefly than Mr. Gladstone would have done on the occasion to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints, referred, the House will not consider that I am being in any way discourteous to it. On the contrary, I should be breaking with the traditions of the House without good reason—for none has been advanced—if I said more.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the Chancellor deliberately inserted in last year's Finance Act a section allowing him to zero rate any item he wished at any time—between Budgets or at any other time? How on earth can the hon. Gentleman now argue that he can do it only in the next Budget?

Mr. Higgins: I am not arguing that. I am saying that it is right and proper that the matters which normally fall


within a Budget, with regard to coverage and so on, should be regarded as a whole. On that basis, it is right that we should adhere to the traditions.
I repeat that there is no precedent for such a Motion as we have before us. It is a crude, feeble, political gimmick, and I believe that it will be recognised as such outside the House. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to treat it as such by going into the Lobby in support of the Government Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Walter Johnson: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, because about two months ago I tabled a motion on the subject which has now been signed by 142 hon. Members. I regret that they include only one Conservative Member, a clear indication of Conservative Members' concern about the matter.
I support the motion and oppose the amendment, because I consider that there is no reason for delaying the decision about value added tax on children's clothing and footwear. Already, because of rising food prices, which the Government say they cannot or will not try to control, and because of rising rents and rates and increased mortgage payments, families are finding the burden of making ends meet almost intolerable. VAT on children's clothing and footwear will be the last straw.
This is why there is so much pressure on the trade unions by ordinary rank and file members throughout the country for pay increases, even to the extent of taking strike action. When responsible men and women in the Health Service, the gas industry and the Civil Service take the ultimate action, there is cause for alarm. Over the years those workers have set an example to the nation by the way in which they have steadfastly refused to be drawn into unofficial action. The Prime Minister and senior Ministers are claiming daily that the public are behind them in their anti-inflation policy. I do not believe that, because the whole policy is so blatantly unfair.
Since my motion on VAT was published in the national Press, I have received a heavy volume of correspondence from families throughout the country protesting about this poll tax on children's clothing and footwear. Time does not

permit me to go into detail, but I should like to give a few examples of the kind of letters I have received. I assure the House that these are typical examples. One letter says:
My husband earns approximately £2,000 and we have two children. Since August, 1972 I have spent the following on various items. For son aged 9: corduroy trousers, £2·85, anorak £3·50, shoes (Co-op sale) £1·50, Clark's shoes, £2·99, corduroy jeans £2·40, which is a total of £13·24. For daughter aged 12: anorak £3·50, corduroy trousers £2·75, shoes £3·69 and £3·75 and black school blazer bought at the Co-op, £4·75, a total of £18·44. Thus making a total of £31·68 for the two children in five months.
Another letter refers to the line that some people have been taking on this subject. It says:
When questioned about value added tax on children's clothing and footwear the Government's answer is always that this move is to stop smaller than average women buying children's clothes which at present are exempt. This is sheer nonsense. What is more, it is downright criminal. I have yet to see such a woman get into any of my children's clothes.
The letter continues:
The question about footwear raises a more serious problem. Firstly, children could be wearing their brother's and sister's shoes. Parents unable to do anything else will be forced to buy cheap and ill-fitting shoes. Is this what our great Government wants? A nation of children with corns and bunions before they reach working age.
These are typical letters that I have received throughout the country. The next letter comes from an old-age pensioner. He says:
…as a boy…money was very tight, and it was a case of wearing shoes, patched up, for a longer period than they should have been worn. This was out of financial necessity. At the age of 21 years it was necessary to have some of my toes amputated. You see, the feet were growing but the shoes were not—result, hammer toes. A mother will find it hard, if this tax is imposed, to buy this item as often as she normally would, with the result that the feet will suffer and the child's comfort affected for the rest of its life. Surely all orthopaedic surgeons will back you up on this one matter.
That gentleman is worried about children's feet, but that is only part of the problem. The trade will tell us that there have been increases in the price of wool and leather and that there will be increases in the price of clothes and footwear. Conservative hon. Members will know something about this. In the 12 months that has just elapsed the price of wool rose from 90p per lb. to 250p


per lb. That increase with increased labour costs will push up the cost of children's clothing and footwear by 15 per cent. If we add VAT at 10 per cent. there will be an increase of 25 per cent. on children's clothes and footwear by the autumn of this year.
My inquiries show that a family with three children spend approximately £120 a year on children's clothes and shoes. If the full 25 per cent. is applied, an additional £30 a year will have to be found by the parents who clothe their children and provide them with shoes. That is a modest figure. I could quote other examples where the position is much worse.
Some Ministers do not realise the price of some of these essentials. The very lowest price for a pair of shoes for a young boy is £3·50. We all know that boys will kick out two or three pairs of shoes in the course of a year. Trousers are £3 to £4. A blazer is £8. All these things have to be found, including shorts, socks and underwear. The effect of this on a family with three children will be to put up its cost of living to the extent of £30 in one year for those items alone.
I congratulate the Daily Mail on the campaign which it is running to have children's clothes and shoes zero-rated when VAT is due in April. It is doing a public service by spending so much of its time and energy in organising a petition which has already been signed by 100,000 people without too much effort.
I assure the House that there will be a substantial effort in the period to come. The Daily Mail's petition and the protest which Labour hon. Members are making is back by the British Medical Association, which has 52,000 members, and the Society of Chiropodists, which has 4,000 members. The BMA and the Society of Chiropodists are backing the campaign to have VAT on children's shoes and clothing—and shoes in particular—zero-rate. They are concerned that the poorer families will not buy new shotes and will make do with old ones. They are concerned that poorer families will be satisfied with ill-fitting shoes and that shoes will be passed down to younger children. They are concerned that poorer families will buy the cheapest possible

type of shoe, probably of some composite material which is very bad for one's feet.
I do not expect some Conservative hon. Members to understand the problems of trying to bring up a family on a modest income. Most of them have been born with silver spoons in their mouths. If we take the Prime Minister at his word—I bear in mind the promises which he made at the General Election and I realise that it is difficult to trust his word—he said that he wanted to help poorer families. Even the Minister for Industry when dealing with aspects of the gas dispute this afternoon, said that it was the intention of the Government to try to help poorer families. I suggest that here is an opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show sincerity by saying now that VAT will not be put on children's clothes and footwear.
There is no need to wait until the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) described to the House, it could be done now. An indication could be given to the country. At least there would be some credibility that the Government are trying to help the poorer families. The Financial Secretary said that he hoped that hon. Members will go into the Lobby in support of the Government amendment. Any Conservative hon. Member who is concerned about the problem should think very seriously and go into the Lobby in support of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: No one on the Government's side of the House could have been more powerful than I have been in my advocacy for not bringing in VAT this year. Nevertheless, I propose to vote with the Government and reserve my position on VAT until the proposals are put forward by the Government in the Budget debate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will abandon their strange and oriental attitude about not disclaiming or not saying anything, and adopting a peculiarly constitutional position, and consider the economic problems which face us today, and which changed overnight in the most alarming way.
The Treasury is on the horns of a grave dilemma about VAT. There are two main problems which face the Government. The first problem is to produce a Budget which will not shake the world by its fiscal irresponsibility, which means not going to the market to borrow about £3,000 million.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is £4,000 million.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend says £4,000 million. This is in the days when it is called need-borrowing requirements. When I was a young man it was known as Budget deficit, and I prefer to use the old-fashioned term. The Government are faced with a Budget deficit of between £3,000 million and £4,000 million. Since yesterday their problem in battling against inflation has been made vastly more dangerous by the change in the exchanges.
As the Government are likely to be aware, the change in the currency arrangements has resulted, roughly speaking, in a further devaluation of 5 per cent. in the £ sterling against European currencies, What has been happening with the prices of raw materials, to which the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) referred? Certain raw material prices have gone up far more than 5 per cent. Indeed, some prices, like those for tin, copper and diamonds, have shown an 11 per cent. increase. We are faced with a grave problem with value added tax in these circumstances.
If it is proposed, as is suggested by The Economist, that the rate should be fixed at 5 per cent., this would be fiscally totally irresponsible and would cost the Revenue about £400 million. If, on the other hand, the rate is fixed at 10 per cent. the effect is bound to be inflationary and to run counter to the main policy of the Government to control inflation. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the prices of children's clothing and was right to say that they will inevitably go up. The increases will be passed by the Prices Board because the prices of raw materials are going up.
The Government must recalibrate their intellectual machinery and rethink the financial problems facing the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th December lashed himself to the mast of this absurd, leaking colander of a cockle-

shell which is value added tax, and determined to sail through, to hell with inflation and to hell with fiscal probity. "Let us go forward", he said, "and take on Scylla and Charybdis simultaneously." We are lashed to the mast with him. All this new Ulysses needs is a pair of Treasury scissors which will just cut out the whole concept of value added tax from the next Budget—snip, snip, snip. That is all we need so that we shall not be in the absurd dilemma of either being fiscally absurd or of forcing upwards the price and cost of inflation.
These things, although I have said them in a jesting way, are immensely serious. The Government have shown occasional flexibility—indeed, have almost established a reputation for flexibility. They have none of the Gladstonian attitude—and I am one of Mr. Gladstone's greatest admirers. I regard him as one of the greatest of Englishmen. Surely now is the time to change around and to observe the realities of the situation, and realise that through the normal purchase tax and other taxes it is perfectly possible to collect new money and at the same time avoid forcing the rate of inflation higher than it need be.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) and the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, talking about yields here, goods there and replies to questions and constitutional propriety and all that sort of thing, I thought it a healthy sign that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Walter Johnson) brought the debate to the difficulties of ordinary families, which would be further added to by value added tax.
I must declare an interest. I have five children. The oldest of them is 12. My second son had a new pair of shoes last weekend. They cost £3·89. The same size of shoe for my eldest son 18 months ago cost just over £2. That is the sort of problem which families far worse off than those of hon. Members are having to face all the time. That is the sort of problem we are talking about when it is suggested that we should add to the price of the goods they have to buy an extra 10 per cent. or 7½ per


cent. or whatever it will be by value added tax.
The Government have given us some fancy figures about earnings in the gas industry. But the basic wage of a gas labourer for a 44-hour week is less than £20. The basic wage for a skilled man for a 44-hour week is £23. Three million male workers, the majority of them heads of families, are earning £25 a week or less. It is in this context that one sees the true perspective of value added tax and what it means to the ordinary working-class family.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite should go round some of our constituencies in the North, where wages are not high. They will see springing up again the second-hand clothes shops—something which we were told about by our parents who remembered their experiences in the 'thirties. We see the growth in poor areas of second-hand clothes being offered in the front windows of houses. We see often the front window of an old house filled with various sizes of children's shoes, ranging from babies' slippers up to football boots for 16- and 17-year olds. The whole range of second-hand shoes for children is on sale. The same applies to coats and dresses. Then, of course, there is the phenomenon of the "nearly new" shop.
This is a sign of the times. There are queues outside jumble sales—and this is where we see the poverty affecting so many families. Where do they go when the tables are set out? They first go to the tables with children's shoes and coats. The charitable organisations, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Child Poverty Action Group, are asking more than anything in their circulars and advertisements for children's clothing and shoes. These are the things which are of concern to us on this side of the House, and this is why we say that value added tax should not be imposed on children's clothing.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) rightly pointed to the increase there will be in the prices of raw materials. Increased prices of raw materials will be reflected in the market and in any case they have generally escalated in the last 18 months. As he said, they are bound to be approved by the Prices Board. Yet, in addition

to all this, we are to have 10 per cent. value added tax. We tend to talk in this House a great deal about the difficulties of retailers' margins, but these will be peripheral to the great explosion in prices brought about because the Government refuse to tackle the whole problem of raw materials in their prices policy.
The Government have consistently refused throughout their freeze policy to try to put any restriction on food prices; they have refused to consider any type of food subsidy; they have refused to consider whether they could control the prices of basics like bread and meat.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to know how things are arranged and how the money goes in most households. Money goes first for the rent, then for food. Clothes come a very poor third. Anyone who has been a member of a large working-class family knows how clothes can go from brother to brother, daughter to daughter. They need constant work by devoted mothers, stitching and darning. The problem is that there comes a time when they are too thin to be worn again, when new clothes have to be bought. There will be a limited amount of money available for children's clothes because most of the money will have been used to meet escalating food prices and rents.
This will mean second-hand shoes, the purchase of substitute plastic—Ho Chi Minh sandals and the like—leading to foot rot, perspiration and generally poor feet. All of my children take a very wide "F" fitting. We have quite a problem tracking down shops which can supply such shoes. They could never be obtained second-hand. Translate this problem into the circumstances of the ordinary family with the constant pressure upon the mother, trying to save out of her housekeeping, and we can see just how difficult the problem is.
Industrial disputes begin on the kitchen floor not the factory floor. The pressure comes from the mother demanding more money from the wage packet. This is why we are most concerned about the main issues of rents, food prices and the taxation of children's clothes. We should not put the success or failure of the Government's financial policy on kids aged from one day to 10 years. That is what the Government are doing and it is mean and nasty.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Before I discuss the topic of children's clothes and shoes I want to address myself to this motion. The Government have tried to score a rather cheap debating point by putting forward an irrelevant amendment aimed at emasculating a perfectly reasonable motion.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Shame.

Dr. Stuttaford: If the Government are prepared to receive representations from everyone they should receive them from this House because we represent people from every walk of life.
I have no doubt that if members of the Treasury team have, over the last six months or a year, been addressing meetings throughout the country as I have they will have found points of view being put forward similar to those now put forward by members of the Opposition. Further, these points of view are being put forward by Conservatives, Socialists and no doubt Liberals too when we have them.
There is a slight misapprehension on the part of the Government because when it comes to children's shoes we are still discussing last year's Budget. There was quite a strong body of feeling on this side of the House that children's shoes should at all times and in all circumstances be exempt from tax. It is our job in Parliament to encourage the wearing of well-fitting shoes.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: That is not what my hon. Friend and I were asking for. We were asking for positive discrimination in favour of shoes which were medically sound, not in favour of the wedge heels and the winkle-pickers.

Dr. Stuttaford: My hon. Friend has a point. What we were anxious to do was to see that children should have the right sort of shoes, fitting correctly in length and breadth. We felt that fiscal policy should encourage this rather than discourage it. We were told that there was any amount of time before this year's Budget, that there was no hurry at all. The months ticked by and not even the Committee had been appointed. We became restive.
This restlessness was picked up by the Daily Mirror Group. Soon afterwards a

chairman was apointed. When we made further protestations we were again told that there was plenty of time and that under the particular clause in the Finance Bill the zero rating could be changed at any time. I hope that we shall hear why the Chancellor has been sitting on this report since 6th December. We want to know whether the report will cause trouble or whether it is in favour of what some of us want and is being saved as something to sugar the pill, come the Budget. There seems to be no reason why a decision announced in December should interfere with a Budget which was not due for some months. We are not terribly convinced by the arguments put forward so far. It is a specious argument.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) has been running a first-class campaign with the help of the Daily Mail. He pointed out that by the time working-class children reach adult working life their feet are often ruined for ever. This was clearly apparent to any hon. Member who was in the Forces. After I left the Army I did a lot of medical examinations for it. The feet of potential officers were always in splendid shape but the feet of the other ranks, those obviously doomed to be other ranks for their two years, were frequently crippled because poverty had decided what type of shoe their parents bought for them. In all probability it was the shoe which had been worn by an elder brother or sister, already three-quarters worn, already moulded to the shape of another foot.
Patients in ordinary National Health Service general practice, where I spent my first 12 years, also suffer in this way. Many of them aged over 65 have received a crippling early in life which is beginning to show itself seriously now. Frequently they are disabled. Now, in my poverty, I attend only to private patients. It is rare to find anyone who has feet which are in a bad condition. There is an income difference. Feet can be entirely ruined because of the wrong shoe. The Government cannot possibly agree to do anything which might persuade parents to put their children in the wrong shoes, even though it may be done for the best motive.
One of the most appalling figures to come from the Family Expenditure Survey, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) will seek to refer, is that which says that the average family of three spends £40 per annum on children's clothes and shoes.

Mr. Peter Trew: That figure does not include shoes. It is purely in respect of children's clothing.

Dr. Stuttaford: I was misinformed earlier. Any Member who visits a constituent who has children at a grammar school or a good comprehensive school will find that it costs a family of three £300 plus if they are to be as well-dressed as their contemporaries. I went to see one such family and we worked it out that it was £317. This was nothing extravagant or lavish, it was just to see that their children were indistinguishable in their clothing from other school children. Children have this right. Children can be damaged for ever if they are sent to school hallmarked as coming from an impoverished family. The inabilities of their parents, perhaps through no fault of their own, to cope with the family budget, should not be displayed to the rest of the school. We must do what we can to ensure that these children have a good start in life. Their minds as well as their feet may be crippled and they may find themselves in the delinquency courts.
Like the hon. Member for Derby, South, I have had a number of letters on this subject, with 95 per cent. of them being in favour of a concession in this respect. It is interesting to study the 5 per cent. of people who are against concessions to children. Apart from those with obvious political motives, some come from cranks—people who, because they, regrettably, have been childless, wonder why they should pay for other people's children. However, they will expect other people's children, when they are wage-earning adults, to look after them when they are old-age pensioners. The other group of people who have complained are, surprisingly enough, the rich. Occasionally a rich person writes saying, "This is only a trifling sum". It is a trifling sum perhaps if we take the family expenditure survey figures, but it is not if we take the amount which should be

spent on children in order that they might have good shoes and clothes.
This is part of the wider debate on value added tax. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I cannot help but feel that it is a regressive tax which will increase inflation and, above all, will increase the anxiety of inflation. Just when people are scared of poverty and are frightened daily by the thought that perhaps nationally we are going bankrupt, it cannot be a good idea to terrify people still more with a tax of immense complexity which they do not understand and which will increase the cost of the basic necessities of life.
I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure us that we shall not have a tax on food. I have repeatedly asked for such an assurance in the last year, and I shall continue to ask for it. We know that he will not impose it in the Budget this year. Perhaps he will go a bit further and give a promise which covers the next 18 months. If he feels that he cannot do that, perhaps he will answer the question raised on last year's Budget and tell us what will happen about children's shoes.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: It is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who has made extremely strongly the case in support of the Motion. He made the case strongly in speeches during the Report stage of last year's Finance Bill. It was a pleasure to hear him making it even more strongly today.
I hope that the reply of the Minister of State will be more adequate than that of the Financial Secretary, which seemed to me a classic example of how to avoid dealing with a subject which is of serious concern to the House. I hope that the Minister of State will reply to the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett).
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this matter can be considered only in a Budget because the history of value added tax in the past 12 months shows that it is not a normal tax which can be considered only at Budget time.


For example, the enormous concession on tax-paid stocks given just before Christmas would, in normal years, have occurred perhaps only in a Budget. Clearly the problems associated with introducing a tax of this sort mean that abnormal steps must be taken. I am, therefore, extremely glad that we have created the precedent of using a Supply Day to discuss an important tax matter. There are strong feelings about this subject on this side of the House and, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South has shown, on the benches opposite.
The regressive effects of the application of value added tax to children's footwear and clothing were made clear during the debates in Committee and in the House on the Finance Bill last year. Few issues have created as much feeling among my constituents as this matter. I sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I had an acknowledgment from the Financial Secretary only yesterday—a petition signed by several hundred people in my constituency about the imposition of value added tax, particularly on infants' clothes. Already leather prices are going up in the same way as meat prices. For some reason the two are linked. I should have thought that if the farmers were getting more for their meat they would be able to sell the leather more cheaply, but it seems that it does not work like that. Leather prices are rising as quickly as meat prices. I heard only yesterday that the price of non-leather footwear materials is also likely to increase.
This tax will have a particularly serious and iniquitous effect on young parents. It will, in verity, be a tax on parenthood. It will fall, not only on all the clothing requisites for a first-born child, but on the other necessities of the nursery—the pram, cot, playpen and all the other equipment which has been exempt from purchase tax. For the first time we are imposing a substantial tax on parenthood. It will fall at a particularly unfortunate moment for people who have just had their first child. Up to then the household may have had two incomes—those of the husband and the wife—to support two people. When there is only one income to support three people, difficulties arise. There may be arguments for restricting the growth of population,

but this iniquitous tax on young families is not the way to do it.
Reference has been made to the administrative problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton dealt very well with the question of large children and small adults. There are borderline cases, but there will always be borderline cases and anomalies, particularly in the administration of value added tax. If we can have the anomaly that lawn turf is subject to VAT while lawn seed is not, we can afford to have some anomalies concerning the boundary between large children and small adults.
It has been suggested that to differentiate will create problems for shopkeepers because they will have to deal at retail level with some goods which are zero rated and other goods which bear the tax. But that is no different from the problems facing the owner of a food shop who is selling, say, chocolate biscuits, potato crisps and other items which bear the tax. Therefore, the administrative objections about the boundary between children and adults and about shopkeepers could be dealt with if there were the political will to deal with them. The object of the motion is to show the Treasury that there is a political will to deal with this problem which has such a serious social effect upon families.
It is perfectly possible to modify the tax in this way. Such a modification will not interfere with the essential character of the tax any more than do other items that are zero rated. Many changes in VAT have been announced since the Finance Act, 1972, and it is perfectly possible for an announcement to be made today. Indeed, there is provision in that Act for such an announcement to be made before a Budget and before a new Finance Bill is published.
If the Government are not prepared to do this either today or later, 1st April will be a sad day for the children. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South, said, they will bear the scars for many years.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Fidler: I have listened carefully to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The debate has ranged far beyond the terms of the


motion, which does not refer to clothing and footwear and does not refer to the regressive impact of VAT. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) referred to footwear. If that is the feeling of the Opposition, why is "footwear" omitted from the motion?

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Gentleman said that the motion does not refer to clothing. It says,
That this House considers that value added tax should not apply to children's clothing.

Mr. Fidler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is able to read as clearly as I can without the aid of glasses. The motion refers to the desirability of not adding VAT to children's clothing. As I hope to prove, it is impossible for the motion to be adopted, because of lack of definition. The motion does not include "shoes". In trying to buttress false arguments the hon. Member for Derby, South, referred to an increase in the price of leather of 15 per cent., to which he said must be added VAT of 10 per cent., which makes 25 per cent. He went on to say that since the average family spends £120 a year on children's clothing, 25 per cent. must be added, but that 25 per cent. is related to footwear and not to clothing.
I appreciate the generous references made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) to my expertise on clothing. Knowing him to be a man of sincerity and truth, I am embarrassed, but I appreciate his remarks. Equally, I recognise that in his profession of accountancy he stands in similar eminence. I therefore find it difficult to understand why, with his multitude of clients, he is unable to produce figures of the yield, or lack of yield, from garments sold by his clients who happen to be in the clothing industry. The clothing industry is required on its invoices to enter the percentage of children's garments, which are tax free, and the percentage of adult clothing which is subject to tax. His investigations into the industry have not been as profound as I should have expected.
The hon. Gentleman told us that coats 37⅛ in. long are children's garments which do not bear tax, and that garments with a bust measurement of 36 in. ——

Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Gentleman was obviously so interested in what he was going to say that he did not take a note of what I said. I particularly said that it was extremely difficult to deal with lengths.

Mr. Fidler: If, tomorrow, HANSARD proves me wrong I will willingly withdraw what I said. The hon. Member for Heyward and Royton referred to children's coats 37⅛ in. long bearing no tax, and he went on to say—he may regret it—that garments with bust measurements up to 36 in. bore no tax. I tell the hon. Gentleman that garments with a bust measurement of 36 in. are outside the exemption for children's clothing and therefore taxable.
As I thought that reference might be made to my participation in the debate last year, yesterday I visited one of a large chain of stores which has seen fit to canonise my first name, and apply it to a brand of clothing. I will not mention the name of the store. In the boys' and girls' department I found cardigans of long length with 32 in. and 34 in. chest measurements. If the hon. Member for Heyward and Royton were not quite so well-endowed in circumference he, with his height, would be able to utilise one of those garments tax free. I found long-sleeved jumpers with chest measurements of 32 in. and 34 in. in the children's department, and they were tax free. I found shirts with chest measurements of 32 in. and 34 in. tax free. These are the chest and bust sizes of young adults well above the age which is normally regarded as the age at which children's clothing would be worn.
As I thought that this might be unusual, I went to the skirt department, where I found skirts for children with waist measurements of 22 in. to 25 in. with a length of 18 in. The ladies' short skirts begin at size 12, with a length of 18 in.
From my considerable experience, I make it clear that manufacturers are not acting unscrupulously. They are taking advantage of the existing regulations. Quite legitimately they are supplying five garments out of every 24 to ladies as children's clothing and therefore free of tax. Garments above size 12 are subject to purchase tax.

Mr. Barnett: I did not say that these traders were unscrupulous. I was merely repeating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said.

Mr. Fidler: I willingly accept that, and I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. As an accountant, he is not acting unscrupulously if he assists his clients to pay the minimum tax to which they are liable by carefully reading and exercising the tax laws. In the same way, every clothing manufacturer is entitled to read the regulations and to invoice and describe his garments in such a way as to attract the lowest level of tax.
In the debate on the Finance Bill last year I said that between 20 and 25 per cent. of the garments sold to ladies were sold tax free because the sizes 10 and 12 are in the category of children's clothing. Whereas it is difficult to define the article, it is impossible to identify the final wearer, however the article is defined——

Dr. Stuttaford: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all children should suffer because one in every five women is sufficiently small to be able to wear children's clothes?

Mr. Fidler: I allowed my hon. Friend to make his speech without interruption. I shall come to that point. Last year I said that between 20 and 25 per cent. of garments sold to ladies were sold tax free although they were designed and produced for adult persons. At that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the missing word "young" before "children's" in the Opposition motion. Had the Opposition thought it possible to define the group consisting of babies in nappies up to children of 8 or 9, no doubt they would have introduced different wording. They would not have asked that VAT should not apply to children's clothing. They would have defined a group. They obviously found it impossible to define that group, and that is why the loose wording recurs today.
However much I regret it, a large quantity of clothing falling within the terms of the motion is purchased by ladies who fall into the category of adults and cannot honestly be regarded as falling into the category for which the exemption is intended.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider the position of those who fall well below this

margin, with its impossibility of definition. I realise the difficulties and I would have preferred a definition to make it impossible for an adult to purchase for his or her own use an article sold tax-free as a child's garment. I urge my hon. Friend to consider whether it is possible still to do this if the trade itself, which has been complaining about this matter, puts forward a watertight definition which will allow of no loop holes.
I seek to draw a distinction between clothing and footwear. I pointed out in last year's debate that young children's footwear was given such a bashing that it was worn out, if not in weeks, certainly in months. At that time I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt children's footwear altogether, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend appointed the Munro Committee to look into the matter. I do not confine my remarks only to shoes produced for medical purposes but am seeking to emphasise that the situation with regard to clothing is different from that which applies to footwear.
Children grow out of their garments much more quickly than the garments deteriorate. Adult garments are worn until they drop to pieces, but children's clothes are often discarded while still virtually new. It is not unusual for clothes to be handed on from the first to the second child, and then even to the third child. No opprobrium attaches to a younger brother or sister having garments handed down. Therefore, the case for exempting children's clothes from the tax is not as strong as that for exempting their shoes.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton was kind enough to refer to my knowledge of the industry. If the hon. Gentleman would give the House a definition to cover the situation of children's items purchased for adult use, I would be prepared to support the Opposition's motion. However, it is obvious that the hon. Member can offer no such definition. The trade has asked for the present exemption to continue because it will be helpful to sales. No definition has been advanced to close a loophole which has existed for many years.
I appreciate the problem faced by parents of young children, but if we are to exempt any large category of


clothing in the manner suggested by the Opposition, to achieve the required yield the tax may have to be increased on the adult range of clothing. This would mean a heavier burden on families with grownup children, and indeed on families without children.
We are debating whether a certain section of the community should be exempted from tax. It would be easy to obtain 100,000, or even 10 million signatures, for a petition in favour of abolishing income tax, because everybody is in favour of paying less, but when we examine the Opposition's motion we see how impossible it is to define one particular group. I ask my hon. Friends to support the Government's amendment, which clearly indicates that consideration will be given to logical, reasoned arguments without any attempt, as the Opposition are attempting, to play to the gallery.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: I intervene briefly to draw attention to the way in which the public are gradually being led into the way in which VAT will be introduced—significantly, perhaps, on All Fools Day, 1st April. I hope that information will be made available to the public, not only about VAT as it will apply to children's clothing but as it will apply to very many other items.
However, it is obvious from the Government's amendment that they are not prepared to make any information available. I hope to tell the House why I believe it is vital in the public interest that a great deal more information about VAT should be made available straight away.
A visit to any high street in the country will demonstrate that there is a massive advertising campaign by garages and electrical appliance shops, setting out in bold clear terms the slogan "Buy now and avoid VAT". We have been told time and again since last year's Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to levy VAT at a rate of 10 per cent. or less on many items and that the prices of some items in the shops would fall. But there has been a clear attempt by a large number of manufacturers in a whole variety of commodities to confuse the public. Against all the assurances which we have been given over the past

year that VAT would be administered in a fair and just way, we now see that there will be a large number of unjustified price increases. Although we are told by garages and electrical appliance shops that we must buy now to avoid VAT, what will happen is that after 1st April prices will in many instances fall.
Certain commercial outlets are now trying to prepare the public for the fact that prices will not be reduced with the introduction of VAT on 1st April. I can see no other reason for their campaigns. The oft-proclaimed belief of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that prices would in certain cases be reduced will not come about, and it appears that manufacturers and distributors are preparing the ground deliberately to confuse the public.
I undertook to be brief, and I conclude by drawing attention to Written Question No. 87 which appears in my name on today's Order Paper. It is an attempt to elicit information for the public, and I hope that in the Government's reply to this debate we shall be given some clear information about the consumer articles which I itemise in that Question. I instance among other things cars, washing machines, television sets, cameras, binoculars and lawn mowers and I go on to include central heating appliances and a whole range of consumer items. I should like to see comparable figures relating to purchase tax on these articles to the effect of VAT rates of 7½ per cent., 10 per cent. and 12½ per cent. In that way the public would have a very clear guide before VAT was introduced about whether it would be better to buy now or to wait until the introduction of the tax.
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you may think I am extending my argument rather widely. I have been prompted to do so by the Government amendment, and I checked carefully with your predecessor that I should be in order. He assured me that I would. I hope that the Treasury will give the House and the public some clear indications on this whole range of consumer goods and the rates of VAT to be applied to them.
At this time of the year many people are getting married. Young couples may be contemplating going out and spending as much as £1,000. If the often-proclaimed reductions in prices come about, a couple proposing to spend £1,000 may save between £100 and £150.
Leaving aside the arguments about children's clothing, in terms of public enlightenment the whole subject of VAT and its introduction is of vital interest to the public, and the Treasury should do all that it can to enlighten us.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The speech that we heard earlier from the Financial Secretary was little more than a lot of pedantic and semantic flannel which was not addressed to the subject matter of the debate. If the Government had been honest when framing their amendment they might have said:
… recognises that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will give full consideration to all representations … except those of this House …
It is an extraordinary constitutional doctrine that while newspapers, campaigners, petitioners and everyone else outside this House can state a view before the Budget about what should be done, this House is not expected to do so.
The Opposition motion says quite clearly:
That this House considers that value added tax should not apply to children's clothing".
That is not asking this House to take a decision. However it is for this House collectively to express a view, and I believe that the Government have raised a deeper issue than the motion suggests. One of our primary functions is to vote money to the Government and to express a view on taxation matters which are vital to the country. The introduction of VAT is an entirely appropriate and proper matter on which the House should convey a view to the Government, and I took strong exception to the tenor of the speech of the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented totally what I said. It is clear to all concerned in this House and outside it that the Government have done everything possible to ensure the fullest possible consultation on this tax, and we said that we would take account of all the views expressed. That was not the point which I made. My point was that the Opposition on a Supply Day a short time before the Budget in an unprecedented way have tabled a motion which clearly is phrased in such a way

that a specific decision is sought. It was to that that I objected.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman is merely summarising what he said earlier. However I take the contrary view. This House must be entitled to convey a view to the Government.

Mr. Brian Walden: Should not the hon. Gentleman put the matter more strongly? This is not simply a matter of the way that the Opposition motion is phrased. It is the duty of the Financial Secretary to come to this House and to answer the Opposition motion in terms. The method he has taken to evade answering it has no constitutional validity. It is a trumped-up device to avoid getting involved in the argument. Is not that the case?

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) always expresses these points much more forcibly than I do in my modest way. However, I agree with him. Value added tax and its different ramifications have been anticipated by everyone for more than a year, and it is not good enough for this constitutional fable to be used as an excuse for not having a thorough debate in this House and reaching a decision on it.
I speak from a slightly different position from that of the Opposition. It is well known that the Liberal Party in principle has supported a value added tax, and I am glad that the Opposition have not wandered into a general discussion of the merits of the tax. However, while I accept that the Government will go ahead with its introduction, I believe that there is a clear case for not applying the tax inflexibly right across the board. The Government should be prepared to consider exceptions.
One of the Government's answers is that the success of the tax depends on the theory that it must be broadly based. They say that if it is not broadly based it will not work. I accept that in principle. However it has been calculated that if the Government sought to replace the revenue from purchase tax and selective employment tax with a straight VAT right across the board the rate imposed would be about 7·8 per cent. Since the expected rate is about 10 per cent. it is clear that there is room for manœuvre


within the overall anticipated flat rate for a slightly narrower base on the tax and for exemptions to be made on items like children's clothes and in the case of charities.
However commendable VAT is in principle, in replacing our purchase tax system it could have the effect of making some luxuries cheaper and many necessities dearer. The people who have received benefits from the Government in terms of surtax concessions will not worry about a little extra on children's clothes. But it has a regressive impact unless the Government are prepared to to introduce an exception here.
I am probably one of the few fathers who do not leave the buying of children's clothes to their wives. I notice very little dissent from that proposition. I suspected that to be the case. There are one or two fathers who take some delight and interest in buying their children's clothes. On the rare occasions that my children come to London, I take them to one of the multiple stores in Oxford Street where there is a large selection of children's clothing. The expense involved is considerable. It is all very well on the salary of a Member of Parliament to withstand the expense of buying clothes for two children aged 5 and 6. It is a very different matter when one considers the impact of a 15 per cent. tax on children's clothes on those trying to cope on a fairly small weekly wage packet.
I happen to represent an area which has the lowest average wage level of any region in the country. For that reason I am especially sensitive when the Government expect people to accept in the national interest a restrictive incomes policy when at the same time they introduce a direct increase in the cost of living on necessities which matter to the ordinary family.
That is one reason why the Government should listen to this plea. It is no argument to say that because there are some anomalies on the boundary between children's clothes and adults' clothes under the purchase tax system, we must have taxation on all clothing. After all, the anomalies are limited only to clothes of a certain size and not to the generality of children's clothes. They are also limited to a relatively small number of people.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) described his visits to a certain store. However, he did not say that precisely the same clothes were on sale in the children's department and the adults' department. I suspect not. Today the style of teenagers' clothing is very different from that which an adult will wear, though I accept that there is a limited range of clothing which can be worn by a child or by an adult.
As a student one of my regular vacation jobs was as a salesman in a well-known department store in Edinburgh——

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The situation has changed since then.

Mr. Steel: It was not all that long ago. I found myself working in the boys' department during the January sale. Occasionally someone came in who was small enough to find a sports jacket which fitted him. However, for every sports jacket sold to an adult there were nine or 10 sold to children.
We should not make too much of a mountain of the anomalies which now exist. The lifting of VAT or the zero-rating of children's clothes would not increase the anomalies which represent a relatively small problem.
My colleagues and I will have no hesitation in supporting the motion. I hope that some hon. Members on the Government side will also support it. The House must not be inhibited from expressing a view on this matter by all the constitutional flannel we have heard from the Government.

6.11 p.m.

Sir John Foster: There are often very strong arguments on both sides of the House for the Chancellor to consider representations about children's clothing and footwear.
I submit that it would be entirely wrong to accept the Opposition motion. Let us assume that the terms of the Opposition motion were that the House considers that the personal allowance of a single person should be raised to a certain level. It is easy to see that the objection to that would be that the House must not pick out one item of the Budget and attempt to get the Government to agree to reduce or remove the tax on it.
The Opposition are asking the Chancellor to take a decision now about the tax on children's clothing. My hon. Friend must weigh the whole impact of VAT to see that it is spread fairly. I have made representations about purchase taxed goods. The Chancellor weighed all the representations on both sides and came to the conclusion that there would be unfairness to traders with purchase taxed goods who either let them out or sold them afterwards. The House is being asked to take a decision about the matter.

Mr. Brian Walden: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a most distinguished lawyer and, as he knows, no one respects him more than I do. May I, with temerity, suggest that he is entirely wrong and has misunderstood what is involved? The Chancellor has no power to vary personal allowances between Budgets. But the Government specifically took powers to zero-rate anything they chose at any time between Budgets. Therefore, the very analogy that the hon. and learned Gentleman is giving shows that his argument is wholly fallacious and has no constitutional point whatever.

Sir J. Foster: The arguments remain that the Chancellor must weigh one thing against another. There is obviously a very strong argument for exempting charities from VAT. I have written to my right hon. Friend about this matter, but I do not expect him to agree with my argument without taking into account that he must weigh charities against children's clothing and many other matters—theatres, sports and so on. An argument could be put forward that charities come into the homes of the poorest more often than children's clothing and shoes. It would be entirely wrong for the Government to be asked to make a decision in this debate. They must weigh the representations from all sides. The fact that the House makes a representation should not be a reason for the Chancellor agreeing to it. The House is not in a position to weigh the argument for charities against other matters. Nor has it the opportunity in debate to weigh sports against charities, and so on. On the merits we can appreciate that it would be with great reluctance that the Chancellor would maintain his decision to apply VAT to children s clothing and shoes.
The Labour Government were in the same dilemma when they increased purchase tax—incidentally, they increased it six times—on household textiles, sheets, and knitting wool. There were very strong arguments in each case why the Labour Government should not do that, because it would affect people who could ill afford it.
If the motion simply stated that the House asked the Chancellor to note that there were strong arguments for not imposing VAT on children's clothing, I am sure that most of us would agree. However, the House should not agree to a motion which imposes on the Chancellor a decision to that effect. That is the difference between the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and me on the constitutional point.

Mr. Walden: The hon. and learned Gentleman is most courteous in giving way to me twice in a short speech and I will not interrupt him again. His argument fascinates me and I am sure he will want to reply to what I say. I could not agree with him less. I am amazed that he should say such things. There is no body in this country better able to judge what the Chancellor should or should not allocate than the House of Commons. We do it in public expenditure debates when we discuss what future budgetary policy is likely to be. It is an incredible argument that certain interests should be able to make representations and in some cases be given guarded assurances but that the House of Commons must at all costs forgo the opportunity. I simply cannot believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is telling the House that.

Sir J. Foster: The House of Commons is entitled to put forward strong arguments for not applying VAT to children's clothing. However, it would be unconstitutional and wrong to make the Chancellor agree. I have not had the opportunity—indeed, I should be out of order—to press the claim of charities against that of children's clothing. I cannot do it in this debate. I cannot put the case about sport, with which I do not agree anyway, and others cannot put the case about theatres. How can the House come to a decision that, in the forthcoming Budget, children's clothing should not have VAT applied to it?

Mr. Walden: It has the power.

Sir J. Foster: But it would be wrong, without the arguments being put forward about all the other things, for the House to require the Government to do it today.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I think that the Treasury Bench was objecting to the whole idea of the debate. This is extraordinary. The whole concept was to try to have more open discussion of Budget problems by the House of Commons. The late Iain Macleod was very much in favour of this idea. The whole tradition of the House should move towards it. We should not have this great mumbo-jumbo rot of a whole lot of secret Treasury people coming here. They get it wrong. We are better informed than the Treasury. We want more open Budget discussion, not closed Budget discussion.

Sir J. Foster: I advise the Minister, when he replies, to say that he will consider the representations that have been made in the debate because of the strong arguments from both sides. However, he cannot say that the Chancellor will agree to the motion. That is the whole difference between the two sides of the House.
The Government amendment states in terms that the Chancellor
will give full consideration to all representations".
What stronger representations are there than those made in the House? I do not agree with the conclusion that because the representations are made in the House, therefore the Chancellor must agree not to impose VAT on children's clothing and should disregard all the other considerations of making it a fair burden. He may in the end remove VAT from children's clothing. However, it would be entirely wrong for him to agree to do so in this debate.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I wonder what on earth all the fuss is about. I cannot understand the Government's attitude. There is to an extent a precedent for the motion. Although it was a private Member's motion—incidentally. I introduced it—the House carried it, much to my astonishment. I think that the Government Chief Whip was caught with his pants down. Any-

way, the House accepted the motion calling for a measure of consumer protection. We chased the Government from time to time and eventually economic circumstances and the facts of life forced them to adopt the general principles of that motion.
That is precisely what we are trying to do tonight. We are trying to inform the Government, and the Treasury in particular, of our views on VAT and its anti-social effects as it relates to children's clothing. That is the issue and Treasury Ministers, as befits them, are making extremely heavy weather of a simple matter.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). I agree with him. His speech gave me great personal satisfaction as it was another indication that the deep-seated Socialist traditions of Norwich occasionally rub off on to the Tory benches. I was going to add mischievously that if the hon. Gentleman is not careful he will find himself on the transfer list at an early date.
I want to refer briefly to the effect of imposing VAT on children's clothing, the cost of which is already high. The standard of children's clothing has risen steadily compared with what it was when I was a child, and I am sure that no one would like to see a return to the cast-off clothing era which my generation knew.
It is all very well to make do and mend. It helps sometimes, but the psychological effect on a child today of a return to the use of cast-off clothing could be extremely serious. It could have serious repercussions in later life, and therefore to impose a tax of this sort—and VAT is a tax from the cradle to the grave—is anti-social.
It is possible to argue that the use of cast-off or cheaper clothing may not have a direct effect on health, but there is no doubt that cheap or worn shoes can have a direct effect. Because of the increase in the cost of children's shoes there is already a tendency for people to buy the cheap and shoddy imported footwear that is coming in in increasing quantities, to the detriment of our own shoe trade.
I have listened to the arguments of the experts about the medico-social aspects,


but they overlook one thing. It is not only a question of having the correct width and length of shoes. What must be remembered is that leaking shoes can be a menace to health as they can lay the seeds of rheumatism in later life.
It is a simple matter to separate teenage clothing from that worn by children. I know, for a personal reason which I do not wish to discuss, that teenage clothing can be worn by older people. Adult men and women with small physical measurements are able to wear teenage clothing, but it is not a complicated matter to separate children's from teenage clothing. It is a question of simple wording and not a matter involving all the legal gobbledegook to which we are treated from time to time.
We are not tonight asking the Government to give a definite decision and betray Treasury secrets. That is getting a bit old hat in view of the income tax announcement some time ago. All that we are asking the Government to do is to accept our point of view, as expressed in the House tonight, and inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action we think he should take. We know that the Chancellor is heavily engaged, and he has our deepest sympathy in what he is trying to do. All we are asking him to do is to accept what the House of Commons thinks. We are asking him to listen to the voice of the ordinary back-bencher. Some of us are very much married and have a good deal of experience of the past. We are asking the Chancellor to accept what we think and what our constituents think and to do something in the Budget to meet the expressed wish of the House.

6.26 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I believe that the question of the tax on children's shoes is vital because of the effect, which we have gone into in great detail on many occasions, which ill-fitting shoes can have and which lasts for a lifetime.
I do not want, and have never wanted, the zero rating of all children's shoes. What I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to do on 16th May—and in this I was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) and others—was to set up a specialist committee on this subject to

work out medically approved sizes and fittings, and that he agreed to do. The committee's report has not been published and it seems to me—[Interruption.]—this is a serious matter. If the House sets up a committee of eminent persons and then takes decisions on the matters they are discussing just before their report is published, we shall rapidly find that we cannot get eminent persons to serve on such committees.
It would be the height of absurdity for any action to be taken in the matter of children's shoes before the committee's report is published. I have every confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to see that this matter is dealt with, perhaps not before the Budget as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South asked but before VAT comes into operation on 1st April, which is what really matters. I believe that that will be done and that we are crying wolf unnecessarily on this subject.
On the matter of children's clothes, the hon. Member for Heywood and Roy-ton (Mr. Joel Barnett) referred to the tremendous complications of sizes, tax evasion and so on. I have always believed that it would be far more sensible to increase the income of a family who would be adversely affected by VAT rather than go through the tremendous convolution of trying to draw up watertight provisions to stop this type of evasion. I say that particularly because, with the raising of the school leaving age, people are having to support their children for very much longer than used to be the case.
It would be infinitely better to help these families—and I believe that they do need help—by an improvement in FIS and FAM in advance of our scheme for tax credits which will come in eventually but which is at the moment much too far ahead for the purpose we have in mind today. We must do something as soon as we can by way of FIS and FAM to obviate the hardship that will otherwise befall large families, and families with large children.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I find the debate and the attempts of Ministers and hon. Members on the


Government side to defend the Government's position quite astonishing. The Minister says that due to the imminence of the Budget he cannot comment on the validity of the arguments put forward by the Opposition Front Bench and on our motion that children's clothing should be exempted from VAT. The hon. Gentleman did not remind the House that in October 1970, six months before the Budget, the Chancellor was prepared to announce that income tax would be decreased by 6p. There was no question of Budget secrecy about that. The Minister cannot get away with that excuse just because this is an uncomfortable topic for the Government and because it raises delicate issues for them. The Minister cannot hide behind the Budget secrecy lark.
Equally astonishing is the argument that the House of Commons must not express a view on the matter. The Government amendment says that the Chancellor
will give full consideration to all representations".
The motion presents the House of Commons with an opportunity to make its representations. This is our debate. This is our way of making our representations to the Government that VAT should not be imposed on children's clothing.
The arguments about the dangers of ill-fitting shoes to children's health, the impact of the tax on less-well-off families because of the increase in the cost of clothing and shoes, and how the tax will affect less-well-off families with more than one or two children are clear. I do not wish to reiterate valid and serious points.
There are, however, a few points which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention and on which I shall seek detailed answers. One relates to the loss of revenue if children's clothing is exempted from VAT. My hon. Friend spoke in terms of the loss to the Inland Revenue being £37 million. But let us assume that it is anything up to £50 million. Are we to be asked to believe that our entire economic well-being and the Government's whole fiscal policy depend on children's clothing being taxed, thereby bringing in £50 million—the same Government which in 1971 reduced public expenditure by £900 million and in 1972 increased it by

£1,200 million, doing somersaults every other month? Is the £50 million crucial to the Government's financial policy?

Mr. Trew: Mr. Trew rose—

Mr. Jones: I cannot give way because of the time factor. Will the Minister also deal with the impact of value added tax on children's shoes and clothing and other items and the impact of the tax on the cost of living? I am particularly interested in the impact on the less-welloff families.
In Committee upstairs discussion is proceeding on the Counter-Inflation Bill, which seeks to ask the less-well-off workers to accept the standstill on incomes or to have smaller pay increases, and yet the Government at the same time are putting forward measures that will increase and further aggravate the inflationary process.
The Minister must tell us how ordinary people are supposed to accept the fact that the cost of the basic necessities of life will increase including rents, rates, clothing and possibly children's clothes and shoes after the Budget. Will the Minister tell us in down-to-earth terms how the less-well-off family is to cope.
An hon. Member spoke earlier about people writing to him who were earning £2,000 a year. I can assure the House that well over half of my constituents have never seen, nor are they likely ever to see under the Conservative Government, an income of £2,000 a year. Finally, it is indeed astounding that in the last two or three years the Government have concentrated specifically on measures to hit at children. They have introduced measures such as increasing the price of school meals and curtailing free school milk. Now possibly children's clothing and children's shoes are to cost more. The saving accruing from such measures is unlikely to total £100 million a year. These actions are measly measures to bring in revenue. We have the right to express a view on this matter and to tell the Chancellor that what he is proposing in his Budget in the next few weeks will be such as the country has not witnessed for many years—that is, a Government considering taxing children's shoes and clothing.
Some hon. Members opposite have argued that one of the reasons why VAT


should be imposed on children's clothing is that 20 per cent. of children's clothes were purchased for wear by adults. In order to close the loophole, they are proposing that the other 80 per cent. of those clothes should be taxed, whereas they are not taxed at present. That is hitting children under 10 years of age.

Dr. Stuttaford: It is less than 20 per cent. becauses only women's clothes are affected and women make up only about half the population. The figure is therefore less than 10 per cent., and therefore that 10 per cent. is to determine the future position for children's clothing and shoes.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to refer to the Government's amendment and not restrict myself to the Opposition motion. The amendment calls on the House to recognise that
Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will give full consideration to all representations made in respect of any aspect of taxation".
I trust that my right hon. Friend will give full consideration to the representations about the anomalies of value added tax. I should like to hear tonight what action will be taken to reduce the hardship created by the tax.
I have four points to raise, the last three exclusively concerning Ulster, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I make them. First, however, I must say that it would be a tragedy to increase the price of children's shoes. It would be wrong to encourage parents to pass on shoes to younger children because, as one hon. Member has said—I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford)—the shoes have already been moulded to the original wearer's foot and nothing but harm can be done to children who will have to wear them subsequently.
I do not wish to see an era of cast-off clothing. I live in a fairly affluent constituency and we live in an affluent society—[Interruption.]—but it would be a tragedy if a tax was imposed on children's clothes so that it caused families to hand down worn-out clothes to younger sons and daughters.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose——

Mr. Kilfedder: I cannot give way because of the time. I wish now to deal with another anomaly under the tax, concerning hearing aids.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition motion, of course, is restricted and the amendment brings in only the general principle that the Chancellor should listen to all representations. The hon. Member must not go into detail on any other matter.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that I may also mention fertilisers? [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh but farmers throughout the United Kingdom might not appreciate their laughter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has gone as far as he may on fertilisers.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I must restrict myself to the Opposition motion, and I hope that I may therefore briefly return——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Member. He may mention the three topics to which he referred but he must not go into detail. He has mentioned fertilisers and he may now mention the other two, but no more.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. The point about hearing aids is this——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has mentioned hearing aids and fertilisers.

Mr. Kilfedder: I find myself in an extraordinary position. Although I can mention subjects, I cannot give my reasons for mentioning them. I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about hearing aids, and perhaps the Minister of State will either refer to them later this evening or write to me.
The other point is the application of VAT to horticulture outputs. This also concerns me, but bearing in mind your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not go into detail, except to say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now mentioned horticulture.

Mr. Kilfedder: I should rather like to explain the qualification I was about to


add. However, having mentioned those three matters, let me return briefly to the Opposition motion. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and ask the Treasury Minister to give us some hope of determination by the Government that a tax will not be placed upon children's shoes. To do so would be a terrible tragedy and a great mistake on the Government's part.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, although there are many other matters I should have liked to put to the House.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: When the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) reads his speech tomorrow I am sure that he will be as astonished about it as we are.
I suggest that the terms of the Government's amendment can be met by voting for our motion. The Financial Secretary made heavy weather of what he described as an unprecedented situation, but we are living in rather unprecedented times and I hope he understands that the idea of imposing VAT on children's clothing has evoked anxiety that reaches far wider than our party's ranks. If one's correspondence is anything to go by, there is considerable public support for the view that children's clothing should be zero rated because of the special position it held in relation to purchase tax.
I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman thoroughly understands the inflationary effect that such an addition would necessarily have on a family budget, quite apart from the national inflationary situation. Such an imposition cannot be divorced from grim items like the current dispute with the gas industry workers, because it is exactly workers of that kind who are beset with the problems that a man meets when he has a very low income and several children and faces ever-rising clothing expenditure. VAT in this respect must be viewed together with the measures proposed in the Counter-Inflation Bill. The tax will press most heavily on low-paid workers, who are not necessarily only those who qualify for FIS but others who are above that level of income.
I cannot understand why the Government should be so adamant or should

seek to hide behind precedents which, as the Financial Secretary has said, have been put aside since 1966. That being so I suggest that three weeks before the announced Budget day it is quite valid for the House to assert its opinion in debate and, if necessary, impose its will on the Government. It is best to do that now, because now is the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more likely to listen to advice. Where is he to get that advice? He should get it in the main from debate in the House. But to moan about the Opposition tabling the motion tonight is crazy.
I therefore hope not only that my hon. Friends will support the motion but that Government supporters who have expressed their anxiety—and particularly the hon. Member for Down, North—will vote with us. I am sure that the hon. Member for Down, North will be one of those who will put his constituents' interests above those of his party at this time. We cannot instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we can seek to persuade him.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: This is clearly a most serious matter, and I have the greatest sympathy with those mothers and fathers who are worried about the possibility of the imposition of this tax on children's clothing. But it is also an emotional issue which has become even more highly charged, largely due to some alarmist contributions from the Opposition benches.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) was more or less encouraging retailers to raise their margins unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was, to use his words, trying to get the working class to adopt "the right attitude" to VAT. I remind him that the replacement of purchase tax and the selective employment tax by VAT will reduce the tax incidence on food, which is the first essential item, by £60 million or £70 million per annum, so in that case the tax is not regressive at all.
I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) who used emotive words like "this terrifying tax", which it is not.
In last summer's debates on the Finance Bill I indicated my own views on the subject of children's shoes. I hope that the committee considering the matter will soon come to some conclusions on that important question, and report.
In regard to other children's wear, the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) for selective assistance possibly represents the right approach to the subject. There is no question of a means test. It is a highly excellent principle that the money available should be used selectively by those who really need it and not by the rich patients of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South. Money recovered in tax, plus that extra amount which is at the moment avoided by those adults who can wear children's clothing, could be used selectively by those who need it.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: I propose to keep my contribution short as I want to leave a generous amount of time for the Minister of State to tell us that he does not intend to tell us anything. I say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—and I do not use the word "friend" in any meaningless sense, since we have been friends for at least 15 years—that his speech was an insult to the House. I am well aware that there has never been a Government that had a greater contempt for the House of Commons than the present Government—which is well exemplified by the First Lord of the Treasury—but I cannot think of anything feebler than to come to the House of Commons with this constitutional piffle that they cannot, without a betrayal of Budget secrets, answer a perfectly straightforward motion that asks the House to consider that VAT should not apply to children's clothing, when they themselves in their own measure took power to zero-rate anything at any time they chose.
Since I am sure that the Minister of State intends to put exactly the same feeble argument and does not intend to discuss the merits of the issue, I repeat what I said. The attitude of the Government in this debate on a Supply Day has been an insult to the Opposition and to the House. The Government have no argument on this case.
Several hon. Members on the Government side have said "Wait until we get the Munro Report on children's shoes" They have had it. I am not sure, because we are not privy to the Government's secrets—and, given the nature of some of them, we would not want to be—how long they have had it, but it cannot be less than two months. There is nothing complicated at all in it. Of course the job has been done properly and the matter has been set out well, but the idea that the collective wisdom of the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State, Treasury, plus the Permanent Secretary, could not have arrived at a decision by this time is nonsense. What they have done is to sit on it.
As for those Tories who served on last year's Committee on the Finance Bill, I told them that if they accepted any pledges on this issue by the Government they would be cheated out of them, and they now realise the validity of what I said. The Government have got the report on children's shoes and they could have acted on it at any time. They simply have not chosen to do so.
Some hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) and to some extent the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), made it clear that they did not agree with the Government's point of view. But many hon. Members opposite are encouraging themselves with the thought that, come the Budget, the Government will make the concession. I hope that that is so. I hope that when they make the concession, if they do, in the Budget, they will then explain to the House why the arguments that swayed them on 6th March could not have swayed them at any other point since last year. In fact, what has occurred is simply a quite unnecessary delay. Somebody said that an unnecessary fuss was being made. The Opposition are making a fuss because of an unnecessary delay.
May I take one or two points which have arisen in the debate. I should like to have made some remarks about the Financial Secretary's contribution to the discussion on children's clothing, but since there was none I have to rely on


the remarks of his hon. Friends who made some sort of a defence. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) which I sum up as "Vote Tory and hand on your clothes from kid to kid to kid. Vote Tory for reach-me-downs." The hon. Member has a rather strange idea of what happens amongst young people these days if, as he says, clothes are handed from elder children to younger children without the slightest resentment. That was never so even in my day, and I have the strongest feeling that if the hon. Gentleman applies that rule to his own children and grandchildren he has a few surprises coming to him.
I want to deal with the extraordinary argument which was particularly favoured by the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that we ought to be careful not to do anything which is not medically approved. I must say that if we followed that general rule in life it would be an exceedingly boring existence. The hon. Lady was worried that the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who speaks with great humanity and sense on this issue and happens to be a medical practitioner, may allow somebody to wear a shoe free of tax which has not been medically approved. The sum involved is so trivial that the hon. Lady can free herself of worry. Of course one prefers children to wear medically-approved shoes, but one certainly prefers them to wear shoes which fit and do not carry VAT. Let us not pick at nits too much.
Then I want to take up the whole issue raised by several hon. Members opposite about family income supplement. Since I do not wish to cut the Minister of State short of the time that he needs to explain these matters to the House, I will make this my last point. I have been fair in singling out the three exceptions on the benches opposite, and I am certain that there are other hon. Members opposite who share their view, although that fact may not be reflected in their votes. I wish it would be. However, I hope they will reflect it in their representations. All that the present Government want these days is secret representations—no more listening to the House of Commons. My advice to those hon. Members opposite is "Sneak round to the Whips Office and

put it in a plain envelope; slip it through, and maybe the Treasury will listen to you."
Every problem that arises on taxation or income is going to be solved by assistance to the poorer families, according to the Government. It is not. I have seen hon. Members opposite spend the family income supplement about 10 times over for every single item that comes up. Whenever an increase in taxation is brought up, whenever some increase in wages is denied, hon. Members opposite say that there is always the family income supplement that can be used. I do not think so. The take-up rate is appallingly low, and the Government know it. The general measures to relieve poverty, although welcome, by no means cover the whole issue. They certainly do not cover the people who also deserve consideration—people on average earnings with a family of significant size. These people are dealt with in the motion.
That the merits of the Opposition's case are unanswerable is proved by the fact that the Government have as yet essayed no answer. I give the Minister of State three minutes to tell us something other than the fact that he is draped in a yashmak, held in purdah and unable to say anything until his colleague the Chancellor rises to his feet on 6th March. If he gives some indication that the view then will be favourable, the House may forgive him. If he does not, I suggest to my hon. Friends that we should divide in support of the Opposition's motion.

6.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): The Government amendment recognises—and I quote—that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will give full consideration to all representations made in respect of any aspect of taxation.".
That is precisely what we are engaged in doing. We are open to any representations from hon. Members and from others throughout the country. At the same time, it must be perfectly obvious to all my hon. Friends that a specific matter of the kind referred to in the Opposition motion cannot be decided in isolation three weeks before a Budget. The Opposition motion is not a Budget representation. It invites the House to come to a decision on one single issue


less than three weeks before my right hon. Friend's Budget statement and, as such, it will be seen for what it is—an obvious political gimmick and one to which no Opposition has descended since the war.
There is, therefore, nothing more that I can say other than to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government amendment and in this way

to treat the Opposition's motion with the contempt which it deserves.

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his 10 years as leader?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 264.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Emery, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Fidler, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kilfedder, James


Batsford, Brian
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torduay)
Foster, Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fox, Marcus
Kinsey, J. R.


Benyon, W.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kitson, Timothy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward
Knox, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lambton, Lord


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lamont, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lane, David


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bray, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Luce, R. N.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Green, Alan
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bruce Gardyne, J.
Grieve, Percy



Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Grylls, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.


Buck, Antony
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maddan, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Madel, David


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maginnis, John E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Churchill, W. S.
Haselhurst, Alan
Marten, Nell


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hastings, Stephen
Mather, Carol


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Sir Michael
Maude, Angus


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cooke, Robert
Hay, John
Mawby, Ray


Coombs, Derk
Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cordle, John
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Costain, A. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crouch David
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)



Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knurstord)
Holt, Miss Mary
Molyneaux, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernle


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Dean, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector


Dixon, Piers
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper


Drayson, G. B.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hunt, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Dykes, Hugh
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.
Mudd, David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Murton, Oscar


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald




Neave, Airey
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth


Nott, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Onslow, Cranley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Rost, Peter
Tilney, John


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Royle, Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Osborn, John
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Parkinson, Cecil
Shersby, Michael
Waddington, David


Peel, Sir John
Simeons, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walters, Dennis


Pink, R. Bonner
Soref, Harold
Ward, Dame Irene


Pounder, Rafton
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Proudfoot, William
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Winterton, Nicholas


Raison, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stokes, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Redmond, Robert
Sutcliffe, John
Worsley, Marcus


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Younger, Hn. George


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)



Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Albu, Austen
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allan, Scholefield
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harper, Joseph


Barnes, Michael
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Delargy, Hugh
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Baxter, William
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Hilton, W. S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dormand, J. D.
Hooson, Emlyn


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Eadle, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Boh ([...]tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ewing, Harry
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Coleman Donald
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Kinnock, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamborn, Harry


Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E.
Lamond, James


Cronin, John
Gilbert, Dr. John
Latham, Arthur


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lawson, George


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Leonard, Dick







Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lipton, Marcus
Oram, Bert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Orbach, Maurice
Spearing, Nigel


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Stallard, A. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Steel, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


McBride, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


McElhone, Frank
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McGuire, Michael
Pardoe, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley




Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Mackie, John
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackintosh, John P.
Pavitt, Laurie
Thorpe, Rt. Hn Jeremy


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G.
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomney, Frank


McNamara, J. Kevin
Prescott, John
Tope, Graham


Mabon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin


Marquand, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marsden, F.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Milne, Edward
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mitchell, R.C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Molloy, William
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Morgan. Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oakes, Gordon
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding and




Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the

Order this day, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Proceedings on the Motion.

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 263.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Astor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fair, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Fell, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Batstord, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Coombs, Derek
Foster, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Biffen, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bowden, Andrew
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Goodhart, Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul
Goodhew, Victor


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Gorst, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gower, Raymond


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Drayson, G. B.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dykes, Hugh
Green, Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Grieve, Percy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)




Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Simeons, Charles


Havers, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hay, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Spence, John


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Stainton, Keith


Hiley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernie
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


James, David
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tilney, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, Sir John
Waddington, David


Kilfedder, James
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Kinsey, J. R.
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hon. J. M. L.



Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lambton, Lord
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lamont, Norman
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Winterton, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Luce, R. N.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. Walter Clegg and


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Jack
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cronin, John


Baxter, William
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Cant, R. B.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dalyell, Tam







Darling, Rt. Hn. George
John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Richard, Ivor


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steel, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marsden, F.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Tope, Graham


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Ronald King
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth. Sutton)
Wilson. Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Paget, R. T.



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. John Golding and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will give full con-

sideration to all representations made in respect of any aspect of taxation, direct or indirect, and appreciates that no statement on any such matter should be made in advance of the Budget.

Orders of the Day — ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (No. 2) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I make no apology for having risen on Friday, 10 days ago, to ensure that further consideration be given to the Bill. I believed that to be entirely necessary if only to show that a vociferious lobby cannot stampede the House.
I find it astonishing that the advocates of rushing through the Bill made no more than glancing reference in all they said to the different problems arising from the different positions of women in employment. First, there are single women and those yet without children. Their position is different from that of women with dependent children. The position of both those groups is different from those of women who have grown up.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) took non-discrimination too far by lumping all these groups together in his cascade of largely irrelevant statistics.

Dame Joan Vickers: Are women who have married and who have children not grown up?

Mr. Maddan: I meant that the children are grown up. We all grow up at differing speeds. I assure my lion. Friend that in everything I say I am against unfair discrimination against women. However, I have the gravest reservations about the Bill and I hope to show why. It is no wonder that there are doubts about it.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), who is not here now but who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on Friday 2nd February, noted that legislation already passed in this House was inadequate and ineffective. We want to take care not to fall into the same trap twice. The Bill is too blunt an instrument in principle, never mind its details, to deal with deep and difficult situations. It is also largely irrelevant. It is like trying to use a tin-opener to extract oil from the North Sea. It is not relevant to the main problems.
I shall describe to those hon. Members who support the Bill some of the situations which arise. We may not all agree upon the solutions to those situations but they will illustrate the need for deep thought. First, there are single women and those married women yet without children. They are not the main problem. They are not the root of it, though they may be those who are most vociferous in support of the Bill. The proportion of these women in employment is at nearly the same rate as for men. That was shown by Viola Klein in one of her books.
The total number of single women and those married yet without children in relation to the total working population is small. Their problem comes because most women have children, which interrupts the careers of those who have embarked on one. That interruption has its effect on the cost-benefit to the nation of training them. The hon. Member for Fife, West gave some examples, and the cost of training in those cases is high. One cannot ignore the subsequent comparative rate of fall-out between the sexes. If we invest highly in the training of all women, will there then be pressure on those women to continue their careers rather than to have children? Nobody addresses themselves to that.

Mr. William Hamilton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Maddan: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wonder why he is so sure. That aspect is worth considering. The Bill goes nowhere even to acknowledge the extent of that problem.
I now turn to the mothers whose children have grown up. Such a mother will have gaps in her experience as a result of having brought up her children—[Laughter.] Everybody laughs. Such a mother will have a gap in her career experience as a result of having brought up her children.

Mr. Hamilton: Tell us about your gaps?

Mr. Maddan: I prefer to stick to the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman might prefer me to do so as well. In Clause 2(a) the Bill talks about what a person is "qualified" for. The board proposed in the Bill has to enforce the Bill's provisions, but its provisions evade


all the important questions including what "qualified" means in the context of somebody who has had a substantial gap in her career.
I turn next to the women with dependent children. Of this aspect virtually nothing was said. The dual rôle of the worker and mother also gives rise to genuine difficulties which cannot be removed by a quick stroke of the parliamentary pen. The first fact of the situation is that two-thirds of women with dependent children do not work.

Mr. William Molloy: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not really mean that they do not work.

Mr. Maddan: When I say that they do not work——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a very long list of speakers on both sides of the House. Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Maddan: I am talking, of course, about working in a career. What I have said underlines the fact that the more women who will have children go out to work at professional careers, the bigger is the problem which this practice poses for those professions. We should note what Political and Economic Planning said, in a study called "Sex, Career and Family", about those women who work at home. It was concerned mostly with graduates and drew attention to
the high degree of satisfaction shown by those married women who have committed themselves definitely and in principle to the role of a full-time housewife".
In that context I welcome Lord Denning's judgment last week that the wife who looks after the home contributes as much to the family assets as the wife who goes out to work.
I want now to look at the implications of the Bill for the one-third of women with dependent children who work, and I do so from three aspects—that of the woman herself, that of her employer and the trade unions, and that of her children. There are many subjective views on these matters, so I intend to base myself on academic sources and research findings. I will quote what those sources are and I hope in this way to start off on an objective path.
I begin with the point of view of the working mother herself. What is the nature of her economic contribution? This

has been well defined by the National Manpower Council of Columbia University, and what it says applies here just as much as in the United States. It says that women
…constitute a distinctive manpower resource"—
[Laughter.] We all know, as Sir Winston Churchill said, that "man" comprehends "woman" in parliamentary terms. The National Manpower Council says that women
constitute a distinctive manpower resource because the structure and the substance of the lives of most women are fundamentally determined by their functions as wives, mothers and home makers.
Why do one-third of women with dependent children go out to work? Viola Klein in her book, "Britain's Married Women Workers", written when she was a lecturer in sociology at Reading University, reported thus on a survey by Mass Observation:
The growth in the number of married women going out to work is the result of the smaller size of their families and the general reduction in housework…combined with a striving to improve their standards of living. It is not due to an urge for 'emancipation'. There is no trace of feminist egalitarianism.…Isolated references to the 'equality of the sexes' were made by men, not women.
Mr. E. Leach, when he addressed the British Humanist Association a couple of years ago, seems to have hit the nail on the head perhaps more truly than I really like a humanist to do when he referred to the curious assumption that men and women are socially interchangeable. He said:
Instead of training our women to be imitation second-class males, we should recognise the basic facts of existence and make a clear distinction between male and female roles, concentrating our attention on raising the social status of the female rôle.
So much for working mothers' motives and how they see themselves. We in Parliament too ought to give more attention than we do to the importance and, indeed, the honour of motherhood. The significance of Lord Denning's judgment is very relevant here.
I now want to look at the matter from the starting point of employers and trade unions. Concessions to women which are not granted to men have to be made to women employees to enable them to fulfil their dual rôle at work and at home because, of course, of


absence due to family responsibilities. A point here which goes to the hollow centre of the Bill, which ignores the whole topic, is one that I can best make by using the measured words of Viola Klein from the same book I have already quoted from. She says:
The onus of carrying out the adjustments necessary to absorb into the labour market employees whose major responsibilities lie outside their field of employment cannot be put on the employers alone.
I will say more about that in a moment, when I come to taxation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Hurry up.

Mr. Maddan: We all thought that there was need for serious debate of the Bill, and now we are having it.
I turn now to the children themselves.
Modern psychology has given support and justification to a belief which at one time may have been thought old-fashioned': the view that the future happy development of infants is dependent on the loving care of their mother.
That is a quotation from a book by Alva Myrdal and Viola Klein called "Women's Two Roles".

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maddan: No, I will not give way because, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I merely wished to ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the working mothers are less loving than those who do not go out to work.

Mr. Maddan: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend's intervention fortifies me in my resolve to take Mr. Speaker's hint in future, and I hope that I shall not detain the House. The very point I was going to make is this: how is the working mother to be able to exercise her loving care for her children? What provision does the Bill make for that? It makes none.
I will not myself describe this problem but will quote three sentences taken from the conclusions of a pioneering book by Simon Yudkin and Anthea Holme called "Mothers and Their Children", based on

research by London University. The first sentence is:
A large percentage of school children had to eat their breakfast after their mother had' gone to work, especially full-time work.
The second sentence is:
One-third of the children whose mothers worked full-time, and nearly one-fifth of those mothers worked part-time, came home to an empty house for an hour or two.
My third quotation refers to arrangements made during school holidays for children of mothers at work. It is:
A large number still had to manage for themselves. This included nearly 20 per cent. of children between five and 11 years old, though two-thirds of those children had older brothers and sisters. Of the older children between 12 and 15, more than 40 per cent. looked after themselves during the holidays.
I observe that Women's Lib and its champions here who ignore these problems, as the Bill does, prove themselves to be completely out of touch with the realities faced by so many women and children—[Interruption.]—in our society today.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Clapping or hissing or anything of that sort is disorderly and anyone who engages in it will be requested to leave the Floor of the House, or elsewhere. If the Public Galleries have to be cleared, that will involve a suspension of the Sitting and may endanger the future of the measure.

Mr. Maddan: There is evidence that working mothers, especially those working full-time, may become less sensitive to the emotional and psychological, as well as the physical, needs of their children. This situation may well get worse as was foreshadowed by Audrey Hunt in her Government Social Survey report. She explained that today granny is the main substitute for mum while mum is working. Today's grandmothers are used to looking after children all day. What will be the position with tomorrow's grannies who have not devoted themselves to looking after children?

Mr. Molloy: You tell us.

Mr. Maddan: I will leave that. What plans have we which recognise the severe drop in family income which can take place when a wife who has been working stops doing so as her children begin to


arrive? It may be said that Government policies in other areas should look after all these things. I want to take one such area—taxation—and see what is happening. This is my last point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen may not like this but they had better listen.
One might suppose, as more single women without dependants take up careers and thus compete for jobs with fathers who have dependants, that the bias and trend of the tax system would move in favour of those with dependants, particularly when we consider that the time when parents are starting a family is a very expensive one for them. It is just at that moment that the wife, if she has been working, is likely to give up work. Yet the bias and trend is in exactly the opposite direction.
I will take as an example a single woman and compare her with a married man with two dependent children and imagine that they both have an income of £3,000 a year. Let us assume—it is a modest assumption—that the man spends on his wife and children the exact amount that is allowed for tax purposes. In 1938–39 these allowances totalled £200: today they are £550. That is not much to spend on a wife and two children.
The amount of net income available to the single woman in 1938–39 was 6½ per cent. greater than that remaining in the hands of the father after that assumed level of expenditure on his wife and children. Today the differential in favour of the single woman is not 6½ per cent.; it is 18 per cent. The bias has been moving the wrong way for more than a generation and it is getting worse. I have ignored family allowances because in most professional families these are wholly or mostly clawed back by the taxation system.
Discrimination is most important in the instance of the single woman and the married woman without dependent children. It arises basically from the consequences of the fact that most women become married and have children. This is the heart of the matter. Discrimination as described in the Bill is far from being the basic issue and the Bill diverts attention from the heart of the matter. That is why I am sure that this whole issue requires much wider and deeper

consideration before we rush further legislation on to the statute book.

7.44 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I never cease to be amazed at the rubbish that men talk about women——

Mr. David Stoddart: Some men.

Mrs. Short: All right, some men—on the other side of the House. If the Hove Daily Courier or whatever it is called prints the speech of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) there will be some angry women meeting him at his next surgery or however it is he meets his constituents.
The fact that we hear that kind of speech indicates how necessary the Bill is. I am honoured to be the sponsor of it and I hope it will receive a speedy passage. At the moment I am engaged on an investigation, in the Expenditure Committee, of the whole question of women's employment, training opportunities and related subjects, including something which the hon. Member mentioned, the kind of support we give to working mothers, married and unmarried. The report will be published in a few weeks and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a special effort to read it and instruct himself about some of the inequalities that exist and the discrimination that goes on as between married and single women and as between men and women.
The hon. Member began by talking about the House being stampeded into passing this Bill. If we remember that it is about 100 years since people began trying in various ways, through the TUC, women's organisations, and through this House on many occasions, to get something like this Bill, I do not think that anyone can call that stampeding—even at the rate at which this House works.
If we look first at the industrial sector I am sure that everyone will agree that women come out very badly. Today about 50 per cent. of women earn less than £15 a week, whereas the equivalent figure for men is 1 per cent. Although we have the Equal Pay Act on the statute book, I am disturbed at the effort which is being made to dodge the provisions of that Act. The TUC is concerned about


the kind of advice being given to employers about how to dodge the implications of implementing the Act. Advice has been given about job evaluation exercises aimed at creating jobs for women which are apparently not equal to jobs carried out by men. This has been put forward as a means of enabling women to be paid less than men for work of equal value.
Obviously we have a long way to go and many or us were concerned that the Secretary of State for Employment was not prepared to take the opportunity provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She introduced her Bill which would have given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to lay an order requiring a certain level of equal pay to be reached by 1974.
Let us look at the opportunities for boys and girls when they leave school and enter industry. There is enormous discrimination. Only a tiny percentage of girls, 7 per cent., enter any kind of apprenticeship for skilled work. Most of those are apprenticeships in the hairdressing trade. About three-quarters of them go to hairdressing. About 42 per cent. of boys leaving school go into skilled apprenticeships. Of the rest, most of the girls go into clerical or secretarial jobs. Girl school leavers and indeed graduates tend to have to follow a clerical or secretarial line if they want promotion. This is particularly true of the BBC. It is particularly true of the top jobs in management. The girls have to start off as secretaries.
We do not ask the young men to begin as secretaries. They get on to the managerial ladder at the beginning if they are qualified to do so, if they are graduates and have done the kind of training which equips them for a managerial post. Girls who want to follow that kind of profession have to take secretarial work and hope that by some stroke of luck they will be noticed and be given the opportunity to get on the management ladder. Therefore, at every level there is discrimination in promotion against girls.
The career patterns for girls are largely dependent on their educational background and families, but I am concerned

that, although progress has been made in industrial training, little progress has been made by the industrial training boards. In 1968 the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions found that the boards had not increased the range of jobs done by women. In our inquiry we found that precisely the same position exists today, five years later. The boards are not concerned with opportunities for women. They are not concerned with giving women what we might regard as unusual jobs. Women are supposed to go into the ordinary routine jobs which women have done for centuries. Any suggestion that women should be trained to do jobs which they would be anxious to do if they had the opportunity does not enter into the consideration.
Let us look beyond the school leaving age and the apprenticeship stage and consider the discrimination in day release between boys and girls. Only about 10 per cent. of girls get day release, often for clerical work, whereas 40 per cent. of boys get it. There are very poor figures for day release in industries in which many women are employed and in which the unions are concerned about the position of women. In the distributive trade only 2·3 per cent. of girls and women get day release. The percentage is the same in banking and insurance. In the textile industry it is 3·4 per cent. These are very low percentages for training after school life.
We need only to consider the situation in the House to realise that there is discrimination against women. There is a large number of women in the Chamber tonight, but in total they are a very small minority in a man's world. I do not complain that we are in a man's world. I complain that there are so few women Members. There should be more of us. There is tremendous discrimination against women in both political parties. It is difficult for women to be selected and adopted for safe Labour or Conservative seats. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Liberals?"] We do not consider them. Women have great difficulty in being selected for seats which they are likely to win, but it is all right for them to fight the difficult seats with large Conservative or Labour majorities against them. They can fight the marginal seats if they are lucky.
There is equal difficulty in the professions. We see how discrimination works in the appointment of boards and corn-missions. We have the "statutory woman", and that is about it. She is supposed to hold the fort and to put forward the case with very little support.
The main problem is the support which we give to women who want jobs. The hon. Member for Hove said that the Bill does not deal with support for women. But it is not intended to do so. Some women Members, and I am glad to say some men Members, have been working together to do precisely that. We have won over the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science to our views about nursery education. We hope that we shall win her over to our plea for much more provision to help working women with young children who need to be cared for so that they do not have to come home to empty houses. New thinking in the provision of nursery centres, in the hours which they are open and flexible hours for women workers will help to overcome these problems.
The difficulty lies with the kind of brainwashing exercise which takes place when little girls are little girls. Girls of two or three years of age are depicted in the picture books as being that part of the community which plays with dolls and prams. The boys in the picture books play with machinery and trains and do the exciting things. They are the doers while the girls are brainwashed into becoming supine and passive.
That situation permeates through the education system. A tremendous change in attitude is needed in the way in which we educate girls. When girls and boys are doing crafts at school we segregate them. We teach the girls domestic science, and the boys do woodwork and metalwork. Why should we not teach both sexes the same things? Why should they be taught in separate schools? Why should they be segregated in different groups of different subjects? It is nonsense to discriminate in this way. All the time we inculcate the view that girls are not able to do the same things and cannot tackle the same activities as boys. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take up some of these ideas. It would be sensible for her to do so.
In addition to being concerned about the discrimination which exists in education, I am concerned about the question of different rates of pay for mature women undergoing training in order to return to industry. There are different rates of training pay for them.
There are many anomalies which I hope the Bill will help to remove. I support the Bill. I do not believe that if we give it a Second Reading and it reaches the statute book it will eliminate all discrimination against women. That will not happen overnight. It will be a fairly long process, and it must happen in many different directions. But the Bill will create the right climate. Just as the Race Relations Board has helped to improve the climate, so the provisions of this Bill will help to improve the climate. It will make discrimination against women unpopular and anti-social. It will make it something which reasonable and decent people do not do. It will make a valuable contribution to bringing about the equality of women which I hope will be pursued throughout our national life.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Many hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) will forgive me if I do not take up her remarks but go straight to the point of what I want to say.
I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that there are areas of discrimination which should be carefully considered and eliminated for the sake of the betterment of our way of life. However, the Bill, in its terms, is very unsatisfactory in many respects—and that has been agreed. I invite the House to do two things—to pass the Bill without opposition on Second Reading and to send it to a Select Committee so that it can be carefully considered. There is a large queue of Bills awaiting to go to Standing Committee. It would therefore be a long time before a Standing Committee could consider it. It might jeopardise the entire Bill unless the alternative procedure is adopted.
I recognise that there are many male and some female colleagues in the House who are opposed to this Anti-Discrimination Bill. The title is a strange misnomer. If I say to a person, "Sir, you are a most discriminating person", that person will


say, "Thank you very much; you have done me a great honour." At the same time, "anti-discrimination" takes on an unpleasant taste.
Those who drew the Bill—a desperately difficult one to draw—were faced at the outset with an impossible task. Let us consider the difficulty of that task. The advertising clause is a nonsense. We do not want to be in a position in which we cannot advertise for an au pair girl or a daily woman without being guilty of discrimination. We do not want to be in a position in which we cannot discriminate with regard to housekeepers, cooks, daily women and the like. Yet, as the Bill is drawn, all these matters could be regarded as discriminatory because one has to maintain equality of opportunity for males and females.
In the police service, in hostels and in the fire services we surely do not want women to have to face the difficult task of handling violent criminals. Obviously, there must be a balance. Equally, certain aspects of the fire services are highly dangerous. I can well understand firemen properly putting forward a case that a large part of their work is properly a man's task.
The Factories Act is designed to protect women. In the police force there are arrangements whereby the hours of duty are less for certain women than they are for men and, properly so, because often they are married women who have domestic duties to perform. It is not in those fields that alterations have to be made.
Although there is no one more discriminating than dear old medieval, Luddite Mr. Briginshaw, if one asks the members of his National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants whether they are willing to let in any women, they will say, "No women at any price". That is a matter of discrimination that should be looked at.
The Women's Advisory Committee of the Trades Union Congress has given evidence before the Select Committee in the House of Lords. In that evidence it was said:
The TUC Women's Advisory Committee consider that in a number of respects the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill would not be

satisfactory as the basis for legislation to outlaw discrimination against women.
The advisory committee goes on to point out what is obvious, that Clause 1 cannot stand. Clause 1 is not a definition of discrimination. Whoever comes to consider it will have to decide whether "discrimination" is the right word and, if it be the right word, what is the proper definition of it. The evidence of the advisory committee goes on to say that Clause 2(a) is not effectively worded, nor is Clause 2(b).
On the setting up of a board, the advisory committee pointed out that the powers of enforcement are quite ineffective, and that is right. Therefore, the Bill, not merely in terms of drafting but in the way in which it sets about the task, does not cover the whole field under the one word "discrimination". Instead, it should seek to pick out certain areas of known discriminatory misconduct which should be rendered unlawful. That is a task which will require the combined brains of men and also of ladies.
Furthermore, there is a constitutional difficulty. From 13th June 1972 until the present time, a Select Committee of the House of Lords has been sitting. It has already sat 14 times and has taken a lot of evidence. It is an able committee, but it has turned into a doughty battle between three eminent ladies, Lady Summerskill, Lady Seear and Lady Macleod, who have dominated the proceedings in another place. The Select Committee has listened to evidence from societies. So far, the male side of the trade union movement has not given evidence, with the exception of the engineers.
If this House is to consider this matter, it is essential that we should play the game by the rules. If the unions—and they may have a proper case—say that they will not have women at any price, they must justify it. It may be justifiable. I do not argue that the firemen may not have a case for saying that all the dangerous work they do should be for men only. It may be; it may not be. It is a matter for evidence.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke of girls not participating in certain work. For the last three


years almost every polytechnic has tried to get girls to join the engineering and science courses. They have not got one. Girls do not go in for engineering. There is no discriminatory action; it is just that girls do not want to go in for those courses.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although this may not be discrimination, it is part of the conditioning that girls undergo at school? Should not he look at the advice given to girls by careers teachers?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, but all the guidance in the world does not make girls go in for engineering and scientific subjects, and it will be a long time before they will. I am merely quoting the evidence which was given in another place. I can quote chapter and verse of that evidence and the answers given by the Department of Education and Science and Lady Macleod relating to the polytechnics and engineering and science courses.
It is plain that Clause 1 has to be amended. With Clause 4 as it stands the Department of Education and Science would be in an impossible situation. Under the Education Act, the Department is entitled to be consulted on radical changes. The Bill provides for the end of all single-sex schools—Roedean out of the window for girls only, Eton out of the window, for boys only. To be precise, the construction is that nothing in the Education Acts requires that any school or institution should be exclusively for one sex. Clause 4 would not require single-sex schools to become co-ed, but they would be in breach of the Bill if they refused admission to a pupil of the opposite sex or refused to appoint a teacher of the opposite sex.
The result will be a conflict between the Education Acts and the Bill, in particular Section 13 of the 1944 Act which provides that there can be a change only after public notice has been given so that objections may be submitted. All institutions set up by charities or by trust deed which provide for only one sex would be abolished, and the whole system of Roman Catholicism and its education would be rocked to the roots. Those are some of the things that have to be looked at.
It is no good saying that I am opposed to the Bill. I am not. I am pointing out that the whole Roman Catholic community will be at our heads if we pass the Bill. All the independent schools will be at our heads, and many trusts and others. We shall find that we shall have to alter the Factories Acts and the Education Acts, and that will be an immense task.
I invite the House to treat this matter with good will in a fair and honest way and to give the Bill a Second Reading. We must bear in mind that the House of Lords is also considering legislation on this subject. We shall have the opportunity to catch up on the other place when we consider the recommendations of our own Select Committee, with a result which in the long run may turn out to be of very great benefit to women.

8.10 p.m.

Miss John Lestor: When people question the equality of opportunity between the sexes, they often advance arguments about the difficulties that would face women if they were expected to deal with violent criminals, or to fight fires in the Fire Service, and all the rest of it. However, we only have to look at the history of working-class women over the last century or so to realise that for many years they carried out work in the mines, in factories, and on munitions.
I accept that protective legislation must always be carefully examined—and I speak as a woman who does a good deal of night work in this House and who afterwards goes home without protection. And so far I have not suffered unduly from this sort of life.
It is not strictly true that the Bill is concerned solely with abolishing discrimination against women. The Bill is concerned with abolishing discrimination "on grounds of sex" and therefore includes men as well as women. I cannot over-emphasise this point for many professions and occupations would gain a great deal of benefit if men were involved in them. I have in mind work in nursery schools, day nurseries and similar occupations in which children work and play in an entirely feminine society.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that male nurses should be included


within the provisions of the Midwives Act?

Miss Lestor: Certainly. The whole point of legislation to outlaw discrimination is that it should equalise opportunities for men and for women—in other words, the Bill would emancipate men as well as women. Since women have been discriminated against in so many ways for such a long period of time, and still are discriminated against, there will need at the beginning to be a greater amount of equalisation in relation to them because they are the people who are in greater need.
The subject of employment for women in the engineering profession has been mentioned, and this whole topic is bound up with much of the fantasy and conditioning which takes place in our society about the woman's role. This conditioning process begins at birth, and it is as applicable to men as it is to women. One of the best toys which has ever been invented is a doll called Action Man. This gives boys the opportunity to have a doll of their own and to dress and undress it and when so doing they are not called cissies. We must guard against the sort of attitude that comes from pushing a child in one direction and expecting that child to conform to a certain mode of behaviour, without any regard to differences in emotional behaviour in both boys and girls.
I do not deny that the Bill has defects, but I believe that as a measure it is as perfect as much of the legislation which has passed through this House since June 1970. Certain areas covered by the Bill must be carefully examined—such as insurance, hire purchase, mortgage and credit facilities in which women are actively discriminated against. It is clear that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act will not contribute very much to equal opportunities among men and women unless these other important areas are dealt with. It is practically useless to have the Equal Pay Act on the Statute Book unless at the same time we also seek to equalise opportunities for women in the professions and in industry.
On Tuesday the Under-Secretary of State replied to a Question about opportunities for women wishing to enter medical schools. The hon. Gentleman

said that he was not particularly well informed on the question of discrimination in entrance to medical schools, but he said that he found the subject interesting. We have only to look at some of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee in another place to see that large numbers of medical schools operate a quota system for women. The figure in St. Bartholomew's Hospital is 20 per cent., at Charing Cross Hospital it is 25 per cent. and at the Midlesex Hospital the figure, again, is 20 per cent. King's College Hospital takes in 120 women medical students per year. What is important is that certain medical schools require higher qualifications from women than they do from male candidates. There is no justification for that sort of requirement. This is the sort of discrimination with which equal pay provisions will not be able to deal. It is a discrimination in terms of attitude.
It has also been said that there are too few women Members of this House, and again that is true—though I am not sure that this is a question of discrimination. Again we must examine the sort of conditioning process which operates to give women the impression that they should not try to stand for election to local or national government. The number of women who come forward to play an active part in public life is nothing like as great as it should be, because from the moment they enter school they are discouraged from assuming that sort of role. We must look more closely at legislation to try to bring about equal opportunities and to combat the early conditioning of women.
Anybody who has been in the minority situation and who has been active in a world which hitherto has been dominated by men, and certainly somebody who has been moderately successful in that world, always has to face the comment "Yes, but she has the mind of a man". This appears to provide great comfort to large numbers of men and women who do not believe in equal opportunity or equal ability. But those of us who for most of our lives have to grapple with the minds of men are quite happy to retain our own minds intact and to argue from our own standpoint.
I promised to be brief and I conclude by welcoming the Bill and by hoping


that, with all its defects, it will be given a Second Reading. I believe that many people who seek to question the provisions in the Bill, and who perhaps see its deficiencies, may themselves have been the victims of the most abject conditioning in their own lives, just as many women have been conditioned about their own role in society.
I believe that many men—and women too—have to try to understand that they have been part of the conditioning process and that in history the roles of men and women in our society have been one enormous "kid" or confidence trick from beginning to end. In terms of ability, confidence and intelligence there are great differences between men and women but they are differences between men and men, between women and women and between men and women. They are not differences dependent on the sexes of the people involved.
Society has assumed a sexual inferiority in women and has then set out to prove that inferiority by denying women equal opportunities. That is what this Bill is about. In extending opportunities to women so that they may compete and play a fuller rôle in society, men will be freed from many of the strictures and confines which they face in having to fulfil a role which someone thought up for them and which does not relate in any way to the facts.

8.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I hope that this is a convenient moment for me to intervene in the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on his good fortune in the Ballot for the second year running and on his tenacity of purpose. I commiserate with him that the opportunism shown by the noble Lady in another place has meant that his Bill has had to be called the No. 2 Bill. In spite of that it deserves the closest attention and respect.
In my remarks I shall have to criticise certain aspects of the drafting. I do that as part of my duty as a Law Officer. But I am very conscious of the difficulties involved in the drafting of a Private Member's Bill as I am of the principle which it is sought by the promoters to establish. What I have to say is no criticism of that principle. It is one

which is accepted by the Government as it has been by the Conservative Party since the publication of the Cripps Committee's Report.
It is not only in the interests of women but of the community as a whole that women should play a full part in the economic life of the country. This Bill, quite rightly, has provoked a great deal of emotion since discrimination against women is a subject on which we all have strong views. However, the time has come to take a cool look at the Bill and to be constructive.
A great deal of shot and shell has been expended in the general direction of the quarry. If we do not pause for a moment to see what is happening there is a very serious danger that the quarry will slip away in the confusion and, when the smoke clears, we shall be left merely with one or two unexpected and certainly unintended casualties for all our efforts.
It is important to examine dispassionately what the Bill does and what it does not do. It is perhaps best to see what it does not do first so that we may see what we are talking about. Here the fundamental point to appreciate is that the Bill does not outlaw discrimination against women generally although its Long Title says it is a Bill
To make illegal, and provide for the prevention of, discrimination on grounds of sex.…
In fact it does not do that. Its provisions relate to discrimination in employment and in newspaper advertisements relating to employment, to discrimination in training and in education, and to discrimination by professional bodies, trade unions and the like.
Before expanding on what the Bill does and does not do, it is worth noting that there is something in the Bill for men. It is not a discrimination against women Bill. Its prohibitions apply equally to discrimination against men. As has been pointed out already, if it became law institutions such as the Royal College of Midwives, rightly or wrongly, would be compelled to accept men. The Bill is not a charter of woman's rights in the context of the family—her rights in relation to her children or her husband. It does not affect her position as a citizen and taxpayer or in the context of social


security. These important matters are not dealt with.
The Bill is not defective because of that—far from it. It is an advantage because this is not an area in which one can make sweeping changes without very careful consideration of their implications and consequences. This must take time. In Canada the Ontario Women's Equal Employment Opportunity Act 1970 and other legislation was preceded by a Royal Commission on the status of women which was set up in February 1967 and which reported in September 1970. I am not advocating a Royal Commission in this case. I am merely emphasising the need for careful consideration if we are to achieve our purpose.
The Bill is already dangerously overloaded, and we shall be hard put, however it may be amended, to ensure that it receives proper consideration. It is important to appreciate at this stage that it is concerned only with education and training, business, employment and the professions and unions. I have to point out that there are unions which are practising this discrimination at the moment. I had thought that there were certain institutions in the City, and to a lesser degree in my own profession, wholly or mainly dominated by men. But I was surprised when I read the proceedings before the Select Committee in another place to learn that there are one or two unions which impose restrictions upon the employment of women. In one case they are the first to go on redundancy even though they may have had longer periods of employment. Another union will not have women employed at any price.
That leads one to an important aspect which has been pointed out already by a number of hon. Members. Whatever the ultimate fate of this Bill it is clear that a great deal of education will be needed in many walks of life so that the various points which have been made can be dealt with and so that there is not a feeling of being channelled along one line from the early years of life. That is why I am so impressed by the American system where great emphasis is placed upon the conciliation procedure. It is only where that breaks down that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggests or allows litigation to

follow and then the Commission intervenes in the litigation as an amicus curiae in order that the relevant facts on both sides which it has learned in its attempts at conciliation may become known to the court.
It is said that the Bill applies especially to the woman who goes out to work and is discriminated against. One gets the impression that it will now be unlawful for an employer or anyone else concerned with the employment of others to discriminate on grounds of sex in certain specific situations. The wording is reminiscent of Sections 1 and 3 of the Race Relations Act 1968——

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. William Hamilton indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: One has that precedent, and I suspect that the draftsman carried a great deal of the wording of that Act into the Bill. But the precedent that one gets from that falls down when one comes to a definition of the word "discriminate". In the Race Relations Act one discriminates against somebody if in certain situations one treats him less favourably than others. Although the sphere is the same, the definition of discrimination is different in the Bill. One has to say what is meant by discrimination. This in a sense will open the way to legal argument. If one is not careful, again the quarry will escape.
I am sure that the draftsman of the Bill was troubled by this, because in Clause 5 we find that the meaning "to exclude" is not the same as "to discriminate". The definition of discriminate certainly at some stage or other will require some attention.
Having settled the difficult question of what discrimination may mean, it will be necessary to apply that definition across the board in the sphere of employment. Will it be right across the board? We must provide for the possibility that the sex of an applicant may be a perfectly proper qualification or, indeed, in certain cases, disqualification for a post. Leaving aside such unlikely contingencies as women professional footballers—we have an all-England women's cricket team which seems to do very well—we must make special provision for the armed forces, the police and the prison service. The list of candidates for exclusion that


we shall have in across the board antidiscrimination will require careful scrutiny.
I think it is essential that interested bodies must be given the opportunity to make representations if we are not to have legislation that, after it is passed, can be made to look ridiculous because some enterprising litigant of either sex, on the one hand or on the other, tries to create or close a loophole through which discriminators may slip.
A special study has been set up to discover the areas in which discrimination occurs and the reasons for it. That study has as its principal objective to determine the kind of measures which are most likely to have a real impact on discriminatory activity and will lead—this is more important—to a real improvement in employment opportunities.
When considering discrimination relating to employment we must remember that we are not merely dealing with a refusal to employ persons, but with their employment and dismissal. Unfortunately we do not have a clean start when we come to consider the proposals in the Bill because, as has already been pointed out, there is a body of law in existence which regulates the employment of women. I am sure that no one would wish to sweep that aside without working out the consequences.
There are a number of enactments which deal with safety, health and welfare at work. The Factories Acts, the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act and the Public Health Act provide special rights—I will not call them privileges—for women in employment. The Bill is silent whether all or some of that existing legislation is to be repealed.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have been following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument very closely. Does he agree that most of the Acts to which he referred arose because women were being used as cheap labour? It was precisely because it was necessary to protect women in that sense that such legislation was brought in. With equal pay there is obviously an argument for looking at the whole of this type of legislation which is there historically because women were used as cheap labour.

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that statement in its entirety. There will be other reasons—for example, the very fact that they were women. That intervention underlines what I was saying about the need for careful consideration in future about how much of that legislation is to remain. The Bill is silent about that matter.
These and other enactments must be looked at to see how far they must be preserved. There may be those who would scorn any protection, but few would dismiss the need to consider, for example, maternity leave, or possibly leave to look after sick children, without going into it with some care. All these may he very controversial matters, but the Bill does not attempt to grapple with them.
I must emphasise that, however skilful and knowledgeable the Members of the Committee might be, that skill and knowledge probably would not be enough for them to resolve those difficulties, and again consultation seems to be absolutely essential.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making extremely heavy weather over what are quite small Committee points. For example, maternity leave, which he says has to be given such serious consideration, was dealt with very simply by a clause in the Equal Pay Act, where it was also appropriate, and a similar clause could be inserted in the Bill in Committee without any difficulty.

The Solicitor-General: I have tried hard to avoid any purely Committee points. What I have tried to do is to look at this on the wider scale.
When one leaves aside the question of advertisement and turns to education, one finds similar problems. They stem from the failure to deal adequately with the definition of discriminate. If we are to have an across-the-board prohibition of discrimination, all educational institutions, whether maintained or independent —and I am not thinking solely of Roedean or Eton, but across the board—will no longer be able to cater exclusively for either boys or girls.
There are, apart from higher education —[Interruption.]—I find these interruptions from the benches opposite extremely


tedious. I am trying to deal seriously with this point. Apart from higher education, there are nearly 4,000 schools in this category—that figure is well worth remembering—and fewer than half are private. Parents are at present free to choose such schools, and I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the House in coming to a decision without the maximum of consultation in advance. We have, in the absence of any clear guidance on what discrimination means, the difficulty of getting a balance in coeducational schools.
It is the Bill's concentration on discrimination against the individual rather than against the group that causes the trouble, and that highlights the possible weakness that I see in the Bill as a whole. It is based upon the individual approach. That may not be the best way of doing it. In evidence to a Select Committee in another place an American official put the point in this way:
…that the processing of individual complaints … does not significantly alter discrimination patterns and practices… Discrimination is by and large systemic, institutionalised, woven into the entire fabric of a company's personnel practices. Unless the underlying systems are attacked and radically altered—systems such as those involved in advertising recruitment, job classification, wage and salary structure, seniority, etc.—significant change does not occur.
The Board should therefore, she said, have resources to use a broad-scale approach to combating discrimination, for example,
research studies, hearings to focus attention on discriminatory patterns and practices in certain occupations, industries and geographical areas…".
She spoke of grants to bodies giving technical assistance to companies and so on, to develop affirmative action programmes, and follow up thereafter.
There are arguments both ways, and it may be attractive to take the individual approach or look at the areas, either in companies or in industry, where the discrimination is widespread and seek to attack it in that way rather than go for the individual case. In any case, one can see many occasions on which the individual is going to be embarrassed by going either to the board or to the court, particularly if it is not a matter of being employed but of opportunities being denied to her when she is already

employed. One of the difficulties is that the law has been settled for more than a century, and the courts will not grant an injunction directly compelling a person to employ or to be employed by another, for reasons which one does not have to investigate very much.
Finally, there is the enforcement procedure, and a lot has been said about that. Is it right, for example, to give concurrent remedies to individuals and to the board? There will be difficulties with regard to what steps a court can take, but those are matters which again no doubt can be properly resolved after the best possible consultation.
The Bill needs a great deal of thought and consideration if it is to achieve what it is designed to do, and it means that something more than the ordinary Standing Committee is called for. I therefore suggest that the House gives serious consideration to committing the Bill to a Select Committee. This would enable the subject, about which I have suggested evidence, consultation and more knowledge is required, to be properly investigated. It would also give the opportunity of getting the principle which I know the House wants established in an effective way, free from doubt and anomalies, so as to give those women who are at present denied them the rewards and satisfaction from work that potentially are theirs, and at the same time give the country the benefit of their services.
Accordingly I advise the House to support the suggestion of a Select Committee after the Bill has been given a Second Reading without prejudice to its progress. In that way the House could give the most careful consideration to the objectives of the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will give an assurance that we shall have legislation this Session because women outside are demanding action and they are not prepared to wait for all the procedures outlined by the Solicitor-General? Will he give three undertakings—first, that the Select Committee shall have a duty strictly imposed upon it when it shall report to the House, because most of the evidence has already been given to the House of Lords Select Committee, so that the Committee shall report by not later than 31st March? The second


undertaking is that the arrangement suggested will not prejudice the progress of the Bill in Standing Committee and on further stages. Thirdly, may we have an assurance that the Select Committee will determine its own terms of reference? Unless the Solicitor-General gives these undertakings we shall have serious reservations about what appears to be a delaying tactic by the Government.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is well aware that it is not in my power to say when the House will get through any particular part of a Bill. As for how long it should remain in Select Committee, if it goes to a Select Committee, that will depend on how much evidence is taken. That will be a matter to be determined by the members of the Select Committee.
My advice to the House is not intended to hamper the ordinary process of legislation in any way, but to make it possible to deal in the best possible way with the problems I have outlined. On the two other points raised by the hon. Member, the date of the report would be a matter to be included in the motion which would be laid at some later stage, possibly within a few days, when technicalities, such as the members of the Committee, could be approved by the House. That would be an appropriate occasion on which to seek aproval for the terms of reference.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I do not think that the Solicitor-General has fully grasped the points raised by my hon. Friend. Do I understand that the Solicitor-General will not oppose the Second Reading and, presumably, that the Select Committee will follow that? We are asking that there shall be reasonable facilities for the Bill this Session. Having taken the Second Reading this Session we want to be assured that matters will not be so protracted as to require another Second Reading in another Session.

The Solicitor-General: It is for the House not for me to give a Bill a Second Reading. It is for me to advise as I have, and for the House to decide on that advice in its own sovereign right. How long the proceedings in Select Committee will last and how long thereafter the Bill takes in Standing Committee will depend on certain factors. If the Select Com-

mittee has dealt with the Bill and has made its own amendments and has produced a thoroughly good Bill, the Standing Committee could dispose of it in no time at all. But that is a matter for the House and it is not for me to say how long that would take.

8.43 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The Race Relations Act 1968 was introduced after being given a special place in the Queen's Speech. In introducing it to the House the then Home Secretary said that it was of great social significance and he went on to say that
society is most healthy and most free from tension when it is based on the simple principle that every citizen within its boundaries shares equally in the same freedoms, the same responsibilities, the same opportunities and the same benefits."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April 1968; Vol. 763, c. 53.]
That Bill dealt with discrimination against only a small proportion of the community. We are discussing tonight a Bill which concerns and affects over half the population of this country. Social policies should be linked with legislation; each needs the other. We are discussing a Bill affecting not only more than half the population but 38 per cent. of our present workforce.
We know that there is prejudice on ground of sex as well as on grounds of colour. Prejudice usually springs from fear. Legislation cannot abolish prejudice but it can make it harder for prejudice to breed and flourish. It creates a climate of opinion in which these things are made reprehensible.
There is nothing new or revolutionary in the Bill. Equality of opportunity is not a new concept, neither is legislation to ensure it. The United States has its Fair Employment Practices Commission. The United Nations International Labour Office has its Convention III concerning discrimination in respect of employment which most other countries have already ratified. For two years I served in New York on the United Nations Status of Women Commission where women from all over the world discussed this very issue.
Let us amend the Bill in Committee if necessary. Let us take into consideration the findings and recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee and, if the House wishes, of a House of Commons Select Committee. The House, with


very few exceptions, seems agreed that discrimination against women exists and that discrimination against women should end. We have before us tonight the means to end this discrimination.
There is a time factor which the Government should consider very carefully, and that is the connection of the Bill with the Equal Pay Act, which has to be implemented by the end of 1975. The Government in their White Paper on the freeze say that they wish orderly progress towards equal pay to continue. Fine words—but it is three years since the Equal Pay Act was passed yet equal pay, particularly among non-manual women workers, is set back today from what it was three years ago.
The Engineering Employers Federation is sending messages of guidance to its members suggesting that they introduce new job gradings, that they segregate women employees into women's work with lower wages and that they keep unskilled wage rates as low as possible in order to minimise the impact of equal pay. In the year following the passage of the Equal Pay Act, 156,000 women were made redundant. The present Bill is complementary to the Equal Pay Act: if one is to operate fairly and meaningfully, the other must be introduced. They go hand in hand, equality of opportunity in employment with equality of pay.
As far as possible, the Bill should integrate the labour force because it is not good for the country and it is not good for men and women to have an artificial delineation of men's work and women's work.
There is no time to be lost if the Equal Pay Act is to be fully implemented by the end of 1975. I have been a faithful and regular attender at anti-discrimination Bill debates for some time and I have marvelled at the kaleidoscopic variety of excuses and rationalisation presented to us by Government spokesmen. In 1971 we heard from the Treasury Bench the present Governor of Bermuda casually dismiss the Bill—there were not as many present then as there are today. Although that former Minister was against discrimination against women, he did not believe that legislation was the right way to do it.
A few weeks ago it was the turn of another Minister of State, Home Office. He chose to hide behind the future recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee. There was no leadership, no commitment from the Government Front Bench: the Committee would say whether the Bill was right or whether it should be amended: the Committee would say whether a different approach should be made: "We must wait for the Lords Select Committee."
What has happened in the last 12 days? Here we have yet another Government spokesman, this time the Solicitor-General, with a third variation on the same theme. He says that the Bill is overloaded, that the definition of discrimination needs looking at and that there is need for careful consideration and consultation. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I could find no good reasons for the House tonight to oppose the Bill. We shall not have to listen to any more Government excuses if we do not want to listen to them. We now have the opportunity, as elected representatives, to stand up and be counted on this issue, and let our constituents and the country really see where Members of Parliament stand.
If the Bill is accepted tonight by the predominantly male House of Commons, the credit for this achievement must go to the women of the country. If any bouquets are to be handed out at the end of the evening, it is they who should receive them because it is their pressure, their determination, their indignation, their perseverance and their dignified campaigning which have brought about this change of heart and mind among the men of the House of Commons.
Housewives, students, trade unionists, women's organisations have all been campaigning us during the last year; and this, I hope, will be an example of how a battle for justice can be won both outside and inside the House of Commons. But I am not euphoric. In fact, I am cynical and dubious about the future of the Bill. Having seen the battle for the Equal Pay Act since 1964, having seen it put on the Statute Book with great difficulty, and as it is not even implemented yet and we are still having to press for equal pay, I am dubious about the Bill.
The Government have granted special time tonight for a decision on the Second Reading. [Interruption.] The Government and the Opposition combined, we can say. The Leader of the House mouthed acceptance of the Opposition suggestion that we should have special time for the Second Reading. This is by no means the end of the affair. Any Private Member's Bill is subjected to threats and hazards throughout its passage in this House, especially if it is controversial and if it relies on the whims of an inconsistent Government to give it support.
Even if the Bill is accepted by the House tonight, will the Government, having provided facilities so far, give an assurance that when the Bill has completed its Select Committee stage and its Standing Committee stage, it will not fall eventually for lack of time? Will the Bill—the Solicitor-General could answer this on behalf of the Government—be given preferential treatment over other Private Members' Bills so that it can complete its whole legislative course? If the Solicitor-General cannot give that assurance, this extra time tonight is totally pointless and meaningless—a toothless gesture of no significance.
I conclude by reminding the House of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
It is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
There can be no doubt that the Bill will contribute not only to women's progress but to total human progress.

8.55 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As a supporter of the Bill, I am forced to express one personal regret. It is inevitable, I suppose, that the Bill should have become associated in many people's minds with the more extreme elements of the women's liberation movement. [Interruption.] We hear an example of it now. As a supporter and sponsor of the Bill, and as a woman, I wish to dissociate myself from the protagonists of that movement.
In the first place, they distort the aims of the Bill. Second, it appears to me that all too often they do not want to elevate womanhood so much as to deny

it. Their extreme views and arguments, the strident way in which they express them, their tendency to emphasise the trivial and to trivialise that which is serious and, more important, the fact that their arguments contain so little knowledge and reveal so little research on the subject combine to create hostility rather than support for the Bill, and support for an important reform which women's organisations throughout the country, as well as hon. Members of the House now and Members before them, have striven for years to achieve and of which there is legislative evidence.
I believe that women are more effective as persuaders than as revolutionaries, and by that I do not mean persuasion by the blandishments of whatever charms they may have, on the one hand, or meaningless gestures such as burning their bras, on the other. I mean persuasion by the reasonableness and objectivity of their arguments.
The Bill is not about liberating women. It is about giving women a fair chance. I want that point to be clearly understood. I particularly deplore the way in which, by their arguments, the extreme exponents of the women's liberation movement denigrate those women who are fulfilled and happy in the role of housewife and mother, for I believe that to be a good housewife and mother is, possibly, the highest aspiration of womanhood and the hardest to achieve. But that those women who want to use their talents and abilities in any other way should be given a completely equal opportunity to do so is, I believe, their unquestionable right.
One of the results of the Bill which I fear is, possibly, that it could lead to the creation of a whole generation of statutory women. There is no more pathetic figure than the statutory woman, the woman who is appointed not because of skill or merit but because she is a woman, to public boards, commissions or public bodies of one kind and another, because this is likely to undermine confidence in the ability of women at a time when we should be exploding myths. I have in mind, for example, the myth that education and training for women is a waste of time. We all know that each year more educated and trained women are returning to the professions or to work after they have had their families.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has opposed the Bill on a number of occasions because, he says, it is wrong to prescribe attitudes by law. I agree with him, so long as those attitudes are not doing positive harm to a group of people, and in this case those attitudes are. The Bill represents an attempt to re-educate attitudes, because the nature of discrimination against women is not so intransigent as to be totally unresponsive to education and to reason.
It has already been accepted by the House that discrimination exists. There can be no doubt that it exists to the disadvantage of a great many women. There is no doubt also that it is manifested mostly through inequality of opportunity in education, in training, in higher education, in job opportunities, in job selection, in promotion and in apprenticeship opportunities.
Of the fact that a woman usually has to be three times better than her male counterpart to achieve equal pay and status in a profession or a job, and probably five times better to be promoted above him, there is no doubt. Equally, of the fact that the Equal Pay Act could be totally undermined by discrimination, there is also no doubt. I hope that not one hon. Member would challenge the fact that discrimination exists to this extent.
I do not believe that the Bill will overcome discrimination, prejudice or injustice. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to any Government without extensive redrafting. I do not accept for one moment that it could be implemented without a number of anomalous situations arising.
But I do believe that even if the Bill succeeded in overcoming discrimination and injustice to only a small degree; even if it succeeded in achieving only modest progress towards raising the status of women; even if it succeeded only in beginning to eliminate those laws and regulations that are anachronistic and to the disadvantage of women; even if it succeeded only in making people think twice before they took discriminatory action; even if it succeeded in only

one case in a thousand in preventing a discriminatory action from taking place, then it should not be rejected by the House tonight.
There is, however, a much more urgent reason to support the Bill—the need to overcome discrimination against those women who, more than any others, need to be given equality of opportunity and equality under the law. I refer to the mother in the one-parent family who has no choice but to go out to work, the single daughter with elderly dependants to maintain and those women who, on top of the emotional shock of divorce, of desertion, of being widowed or even of having an inadequate husband, must face a barrier of discrimination that will bring them face to face with frustration and financial hardship simply because they are women.
On behalf of those women the Bill should not be rejected, because their struggle is a very unequal one. With a family to support, they cannot earn as much as a man. They are not given the same opportunities to work overtime as a man. The law and the tax system discriminate against them, as do landlords and even some council housing departments. In some cases they will need a male sponsor if they want to take on a mortgage.
Even more reprehensible, some employers will discriminate against women simply because they are divorced or deserted. Unlike men, women have to reveal their marital status on many more occasions. Even in this enlightened day there are still people who regard divorced women as having somehow failed, as being inadequate, unreliable or neurotic, whereas they regard the divorced man with indulgence, as having escaped from a harridan, or with even more indulgence as being a "bit of a lad".
I cannot describe as eloquently as the Finer Committee did the plight of those women alone. If the Bill were to move only an inch in the direction of alleviating that plight, it should be accepted, because with all its faults it represents a gesture that I believe should be made. Notwithstanding that it may be no more than a gesture, it is one that could very well provide, if not the whole edifice, at least the foundation stone on which to build a fairer society for women.

9.4 p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: Various hon. Members tonight have tried more delaying tactics against a further step in progress towards the rights of women. To hear some hon. Members, we might think that sufficient evidence had not already been produced by various commissions and set out in international declarations, treaties, charters, agreements and conventions. At the United Nations, the ILO and all the various international conferences, sentiments are expressed showing clearly that women are classified as second-class citizens.
Many conferences are attended by parliamentarians who intend to report the feelings there expressed to their national Governments and seek to embody them in their statutes. They want to try to create a fabric of society which will give women a much more equal opportunity. At international conferences and conventions everybody seems seized of the idea that those objects are right. But when those feelings are expressed to the national Governments, whether the United Kingdom Government or any of the Governments of the European countries, all kinds of problems seem to arise which mean that the ideas cannot be put into operation. Often problems arise because of the attitudes of members of the various Governments. In the present Government and in the House people either echo other people's thinking outside and make those thoughts their point of view in this Chamber or try to form opinions and get the public to go along with those opinions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is trying by means of legislation to bring about legal recognition of women's rights. I support him in that aim. To achieve it there must be a change in people's attitudes. They can be conditioned by the utterings of hon. Members but we must go a long way before they can be changed.
Generally speaking the rights of man have always been interpreted as the rights of men. Women have never even had God on their side.
There has been a great deal of discussion here about the Treaty of Rome and our accession to the EEC. Article 119 of the treaty provides for equal pay

between men and women. That is one of the most important social clauses of the treaty, but I cannot say that I have heard any discussion upon that article. We have been inundated with regulations about the size of eggs and how many eyes a potato must have before it can be brought into this country. All these peripheral matters have been discussed, but not the fundamental social aspects of what is called joining the EEC.
Before this debate there was a long debate upon the implications of VAT, which is connected with our joining the EEC. I only hope that the Government dealt with discrimination against women with the same speed as they dealt with VAT.
Many hon. Members have spoken about discrimination and the difficulty of exposing it. It is difficult to expose because, instead of being open and unashamed, it very often takes on the guise of special protection.
Male hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill have been perhaps echoing the view that women need special protection. I do not accept this concept. There are many jobs in society done by men which all men would not be capable of doing. It can easily be pointed out that there are male hon. Members who would not make very good firemen and many would not make very good miners. I must say that many hon. Members on this side of the House have made excellent miners and firemen, but that does not apply to the majority of male Members of the House.
Women's work is undervalued only because we persist in giving them the same working conditions as men. We do this because we are hypocritical. Misleadingly it is done in the name of equality, as it is called. I say that we should let discrimination give way to differentiation. Many hon. Members have spoken about woman's place in the home and the role she has to play in the home. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the educational approach that trains boys for an active role in society and in the community generally and girls for a much more passive role. One hon. Member spoke about child-bearing as though it were a penalty that women have to undergo, instead of women being praised for bearing children.
In our debate on 2nd February the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) spoke about discrimination in politics. Many women would love to attend political meetings. But we all know of the women who turn up at political meetings eager to remake the world but find themselves allowed only to make the tea.
In their contribution to society, the growth in the number of women at work accounts for almost all the growth in the working population in Great Britain in the last 20 years, but we still have to face the fact that there are approximately 2 million more women than men in Great Britain. Yet we still have to fight for equality. The Bill takes a step towards it. For example, there are twice as many men justices of peace as women, and only 12 per cent. of local councillors are women. One of my hon. Friends has drawn attention to the few women Members of Parliament. Perhaps one could argue that this is discrimination against men in that there is only one of us for every 24 men.
The image of women as decorative dolls with unfurnished minds has really and truly been exploited in our social life. We should look a little further than London and the home counties when taking about the contribution of women. Many hon. Members on both sides must know of the contribution which women are making, not only in London and the surrounding areas but throughout the country. So often women are neglected because they happen to live north of Watford. They are not recognised by Governments or anyone else if they live any further north than Watford.
This has some bearing on the attitude of women. Women have the same abilities as men. They have ambitions and ideas and can contribute to society as much as men. It is time that men and the community generally learned to think of people in terms of their personalities and not in terms of their sexual rôles.
I do not believe that men and women are equal; I believe they are complementary. I would not favour a petticoat régime. I support a society which gives equal opportunities, which gives people the opportunities of a free, responsible and independent rôle in society. The Bill is not perfect. There are many imperfections in it and many alterations will

have to be made in Committee. Its aim of giving women their due place in society cannot be questioned and I support it.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Like the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) I can say that, in her phrase, I have been a regular and faithful attender at these debates on antidiscrimination Bills.

Mr. Thomas Cox: That is the trouble.

Mr. Bell: I do not think that the hon. Lady will complain of any undue variation in my attitude. I have this to say about the procedure which we find ourselves following. Some odd things come forward on Fridays—I have even been responsible for promoting some of them. There is a merciful procedure which deals with most of them in a relatively painless and not very explosive way.
If we have time for these Bills, what follows is that hon. Members must take responsibility for approaching them in a critical, serious and, may I say it, discriminating manner. This Bill, which has been given this rather special facility, is really a manifesto. It is not a draft law at all. It is not acceptable to anyone in the House as a draft law. We all know that. A special procedure has been proposed, that of sending it to a Select Committee, in the hope that starting with the underlying purpose, to use the phrase which has occurred so often, the Committee will be able to draft a sensible Bill, applicable in practice and without absurdities. I find this a strange operation but I will not oppose that suggestion if it is the wish of the House.
There are certain areas in which something could be done, perhaps through the medium of the law where, for example, there is a barrier or impediment to women through a para-legal operation, such as an exclusive rule of a trade union. It can be argued—I do not know what view other hon. Members would take—that where this happens the only hope of dealing with it is through the law. The Bill is a manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) went through it. There are five operative clauses. Clause 1 is preposterous because there could not be that definition of discrimination.

Miss Mary Holt: If my hon. and learned Friend looks at the Bill he will see that the words used are "In this Act". I am sure he will agree that any definition which is incorporated into an Act with those words can be accepted.

Mr. Bell: If we were to say that, it would produce an odd situation.
The definition of discrimination in the Bill could not be accepted in practice. That has been fairly generally conceded. I do not agree with the Race Relations Act, but at least people can argue that we should not discriminate on the ground of race in employment, and so on. But no one can seriously argue that we should not discriminate on the ground of sex. We rightly discriminate on the ground of sex in the whole of our social life. So we must have a different approach.
In the debate which we had the Friday before last, some hon. Members on the Opposition side said that the Bill was not intended to apply to activities in which it would be natural and perhaps desirable to prefer women. But that is not what the Bill is about. When we define the categories in which it is natural and desirable to prefer women, or men, we approach the nub of the problem in preparing a draft law.
One of the things which worries me is that by allowing the Bill to go through for further study we shall seem almost to have accepted the principle and desirability of it at the outset. Now that there is no time bar, is it right to be using to this extent, as we seem to be proposing, the power of the law over people to regulate judgments or opinions in the ordinary activities of life?
As has been said, discrimination is a good thing. I would say that it was always right. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said that we must get rid of discrimination and have differentiation. There is no difference. Discrimination is differentiation. What the hon. Lady means is that, having discriminated or differentiated, one should not attach unreasonable consequences to the differences one has observed. That is different. Once we define it properly, we realise that what is an unreasonable consequence will always be a matter of

personal opinion and personal judgment. Different people will take different views.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is the same with every Statute.

Mr. Bell: Yes, but the difficulty with this Bill is that it is a bludgeoning Bill which says that the whole lot is out.
Not only Clause 1 but Clause 2 is impossible. Clause 2 puts a blanket prohibition on differentiating in employment. In no job, not even in the case of personal attendants, would it be permissible to differentiate on the ground of sex, not even in lavatories. In no section would discrimination on the ground of sex be lawful under the Bill. It is easy to say that we could put in an amendment about that, but drawing the line would be the 64-dollar question.
Clause 3 about advertisements is impossible. It could never be operated. Clause 4 applies to the total generality of education. Some people prefer single-sex schools for their sons or daughters. Other people disagree with that. But should no one be able to exercise the preference under the law? Is there to be a bed of Procrustes into which everybody must fit? Some people take a very strong view that there should be no differentiation on the ground of sex. That is what Clause 4 does. How does one try to amend it? Does one do it by saying that some people would have that right and others would not, or that they have that right up to the age of 11 and not beyond? Why should this be done at all?
A Bill like this does not come just because there are militant organisations milling around looking for something to do. There is a specific reason. It is to be found in the Act which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put on the statute book, the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act does not proceed upon the principle of equal pay for equal work. If it did, there would not be the problems that have been referred to.
In moving the Second Reading of the Equal Pay Bill, the right hon. Member for Blackburn said that the phrase "equal pay for work of equal value" was too abstract to put in an Act, and so that Act does not proceed upon that principle. It proceeds upon the principle of job


description. If an employer were to employ a man and a woman to do the same job which, to make it easier, depended entirely upon physical strength, so that one could demonstrate with total certainty that the man's work in that job was worth twice the woman's, the employer nevertheless would have to pay the same amount to the woman. Differentiation according to the value of the work done is ruled out by that Act.
So far as I know, that Act is unique throughout the world in being based on that foolish concept, totally contrary to the universal declaration to which reference has been made. I do not know why it was done. I opposed it at the time, but it was done and its effect was forecast by many hon. Members.
Employers are driven to try to re-categorise so as to employ men in those jobs in which their performance is best and women in those which they can best perform. The employer is forbidden by this absurd, unprecedented, unparalleled law not to employ indifferently men or women and pay them according to the measured value of the work done. Because that absurd, doctrinaire thing is done the next doctrinaire thing has to be done, and we are now proposing to say to the employer "What is more, when a man and a woman come for a job you shall not distinguish between them on grounds of sex. You must employ the woman if the job is there, and you must pay her as though she were a man". [HON. Members: "No."] It is no good saying "No". It is the case. The Bill seeks to prevent employers from avoiding the absurdity which is inherent in the Equal Pay Act. It is right that the House should bear that in mind and that a Select Committee should have it in mind.
Some of those who support the Bill are animated by an absurd and extreme doctrine of interchangeability of sex—the unisex concept. That that is so is evidenced by the fact that almost all hon. Members from the Opposition benches who have supported the Bill have played the numbers game. They have said that women are in a certain proportion, yet the number in a certain grade or position is so-and-so.
The Bill lays down the condition that one-half of the board must be women.

When injustice is sought to be proved, it is always said that the number of women in a particular occupation does not correspond with their proportion in the community. This is not asking for an open choice upon merit and suitability; it is asking for equal representation at all levels. It is like the Equal Pay Act since it puts behind it the true principle and acts on the wrong, the unjust and the oppressive principle.
The Bill is wrongly conceived and I do not believe that it can be cured by any process which does not involve striking out all its clauses and putting something totally different in their place. In my view, the logical thing to do is to vote against it on Second Reading——

Dame Joan Vickers: I should like to remind my hon. and learned Friend that he said the same thing about attachment of earnings, and that that has now led to legislation. He also said the same thing about guardianship, and that matter is being dealt with in the House of Lords.

Mr. Bell: Yes, and I was right on both occasions. My opposition to attachment of earnings was entirely supported by trade union Members opposite who rightly, as it turned out, were looking after the legitimate interests of their members. However, my hon. Friend must not tempt me into other matters.
I have to ask myself what I shall do at the end of this debate. I have never hesitated to state the true grounds on which I support or oppose any measure. I believe not in evasive tactics but in looking at practical difficulties. When I believe that a Bill is wrong in principle, I prefer to take my stand on a position from which I shall not later have to retreat. I have always opposed this kind of Bill. It has been made clear, however, that there seems to be a corpus of agreement on both sides of the House that the Bill could become an Act of Parliament without ridicule and that the Select Committee procedure might produce something which the House could later support. I doubt it, but I shall not stand in the way of that attempt so far as it lies in my power to do so. Therefore, if it is the intention of the sponsors to agree to this somewhat eccentric procedure, on that basis I shall not seek to divide the House.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the Government have responded to the desire of the whole House in affording us the opportunity to have this resumed debate on this Bill today. The House congratulates my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) whose persistence over six years has been rewarded by having a full-dress debate on this Bill at last. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for affording us the opportunity arising from his good fortune in the ballot, of being able to discuss the Bill on two occasions.
I hope that my own credentials to speak on the Bill are acceptable to the House. I joined with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) on the famous occasion in May 1952 when the House approved the principle of the Equal Pay Act. Later I negotiated the first agreement for equal pay in the public service. That was in 1955, 17 years ago, and equal pay is still a matter of current interest and controversy in many branches of industry and administration.
Some Government supporters made to wound this Bill but appeared afraid politically to strike. That criticism cannot be made against the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) or against the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The hon. Member for Hove revealed to us how rapidly the world is passing him by, and it may be that Hove is no sort of place to be "with it". But his was the authentic voice of the Edwardian period. He argued against women, especially married women, taking up careers at all. That was the gist of his argument——

Mr. Maddan: My argument was against women pursuing careers while they had the responsibility of children under 15 at home.

Mr. Houghton: In other words, the hon. Gentleman was imposing his judgment upon the women concerned. Women who take up careers have made their own choice. They have decided to order their own lives and to satisfy what they feel to be their rôles in life. If they elect to

follow careers they are asking for equality of opportunity with men in their jobs.
The Solicitor-General pointed out that the Bill deals with only three areas of discrimination. That is true. The three areas in the Bill are perhaps the most sensitive in terms of human relationships because they cover employment, education and training. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there are other areas of discrimination against women.
There is a report of a study group of the Labour Party which I recommend right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to read—and this is only a very brief commercial. It represented three years' work on the part of the study group of which I was a member throughout and it went over the ground very carefully. The report reveals the many other respects in which there is discrimination against women. There is, for example, social security. I blew my top about that in a debate not long ago. There is discrimination against women in taxation matters, in rights in marriage, and in political and public life. They are not dealt with in the Bill because most of them are more suitably dealt with in their respective fields of legislation than in a general Bill against discrimination. Some of them are receiving attention in legislation which is currently before Standing Committees of this House.
The areas covered by the Bill are employment, education and training, and professional bodies and trade unions. There is no doubt that in all there are strongly entrenched forces of bias against women.
The need for legislation on the lines of this Bill was surely suggested by the present Home Secretary when the House debated the Equal Pay Bill. On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said,
First, there is the silence of the Bill on the vital question of equality of opportunity for employment. The Bill is intended to prevent discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment between men and women, but it leaves untouched some most important aspects of discrimination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 936.]
We are all agreed that the Equal Pay Act did not deal with discrimination. In Committee, the Home Secretary said,
equal pay and equal opportunity must go hand in hand if we are to achieve the advancement of women".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March 1970, Standing Committee H; c. 137.]


That is what the Bill is trying to do. It is complementary to the Equal Pay Act.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading—that is the question before the House—it will, by being accepted by the House, mark another significant stage in the slow, long march towards equality. If it becomes law in due course, as many of us hope—we shall ask the Government for some assurances about facilities for that—it will rank along with votes for women, the Sex Disqualification Removal Act and the Equal Pay Act in our social history.
We all know that there are difficulties in changing attitudes by legislation. This is the problem in discrimination against women with which we had to deal in discrimination on grounds of race. But without legislation there is no impetus to change.
The Solicitor-General said that more education was necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), in an admirable speech, pointed out that with the encouragement of legislation the achievement of the purpose of the Bill, equality, is more likely. If something is unlawful then it will influence attitudes, practices and prejudices. It will be talked about, it will be referred to, it will be quoted, and it will largely be observed, even if enforcement proves difficult.
This is where the functions of the Anti-Discrimination Board proposed in the Bill would come in. Under one clause in the Bill a complainant would still have access to the courts without prior reference to the Anti-Discrimination Board, but that clause can be considered when the Bill is examined, as I understand is likely, in a Select Committee. The Anti-Discrimination Board would probably be the most convenient clearing house for all matters arising under the Bill.
I agree with the Solicitor-General that it would be of advantage if the Anti-Discrimination Board gave more attention to the broad areas of discrimination rather than got bogged down with innumerable individual complaints of discrimination. We may need to examine whether the same machinery to look broadly at discrimination should be used to deal with individual complaints and appeals.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Following through the right hon. Gentleman's line of thought, which I think is right, does he agree that if there were some board or committee which would, for example, enable a request to go to the TUC for it to consider as a whole the areas in which it is felt there might be discriminatory action, so that the TUC could call before it the various unions concerned, not only women's, but men's unions, we might be able to get the whole trade union movement together in this sphere to set an example which would knock out discrimination in other spheres faster than almost any other action?

Mr. Houghton: That is an interesting and important suggestion. It may come within the functions of an Anti-Discrimination Board. My idea is that the Anti-Discrimination Board would have responsibility for eliminating discrimination in all the spheres covered by the Bill and its terms of reference. It could set about the elimination of discrimination and make overtures in particular areas where it exists to get it removed so that complaints need not come to the Board. These questions could go to the Select Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech mentioned many aspects of the Bill which obviously require further examination. Indeed, he mentioned the very point with which we have just dealt.
The Solicitor-General used many arguments against the drafting of the Bill which we heard so frequently against the drafting of the Race Relations Bill some years ago. Admittedly it is a difficult field. Admittedly it is imperfect legislation even when one has made the best of it. Nevertheless, that Bill was dealing with a social issue of grave importance. It was trying to arrest a tendency in the community which, if it were allowed to continue, might create deep divisions and lead to racial antagonisms of the gravest kind.
Similar considerations do not exist in connection with discrimination against women. Nevertheless, this is a field in which discrimination has to be brought within the framework of legislation and made workable if it is to achieve the purpose that we want it to have. At the same time, Sir Roy Wilson's evidence to the Select Committee in another place about


the dangers of too close a comparison between discrimination against women and discrimination on racial grounds should be heeded when the Select Committee looks at the problem.
As to the future of all this, a great deal of evidence has already been given to the Select Committee in another place. A great deal of publicity is being given to the evidence given to that Committee and to discussions of the issue generally. We hope that if a Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons it will not need to go over all the same ground again and that it will be able to avail itself of the work done by the Select Committee in another place, though of course that would not restrict the Select Committee of the House of Commons from calling additional evidence if it wished to do so. As I see it, it should not be necessary for the Select Committee of the House of Commons to spend months and months looking at this matter when it can be assisted in such a valuable way by the work done in another place.
The Question before the House is that the Bill be given a Second Reading. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading without a Division, because that would have a significant impact upon public opinion. I understand that if the Bill gets a Second Reading there is likely to follow a motion from the Government that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
If that is done, I shall advise all supporters of the Bill to accept it. At the same time, we should make it clear that we accept reference to a Select Committee on the clear understanding that this is not a delaying device, that it is not intended to impede the progress of the Bill and that it is only a matter of good parliamentary procedure in the special circumstances of this case. The special circumstances are that this is a private Member's Bill lacking all the facilities which the Government have in drafting their legislation and that we acknowledge that the Bill is in need of close examination over a brief period with all the available evidence from another place and from outside so that the Select Committee can report to the House within a reasonable period. That may be more

expeditious than if the Bill were to wait for a place in a Standing Committee. The work could be going on in the meantime, but this should not leave the Bill stranded or delayed eventually when the Select Committee makes its report to the House.
I hope that those understandings can be honoured by the Government. I do not know whether it is the intention to put an instruction in the terms of reference of the Select Committee to report by a certain date. But if the motion comes before the House for its appointment with terms of reference and with its composition we may well wish to see included in that motion an instruction to the Select Committee that it should report back to the House by a specified date.
We believe that to be essential if we are to avoid a long period of examination by the Select Committee which may mean the House being robbed entirely of the opportunity of passing a reconditioned Bill into law this Session, if ever. We are asking the Government for reasonable safeguards against the possible misuse of the Select Committee procedure so that having been given a Second Reading it shall be subject to the normal process of awaiting its place for Standing Committee.
I hope the House will define its position and show that it is not lagging behind the Lords spiritual and temporal. There was a time when the House of Lords was a reactionary chamber but now in some respects it is a progressive chamber and in certain matters it has been a pathfinder in social reform. This is one case where the House of Commons might well copy what the House of Lords has already done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) made a speech which I thought covered the ground admirably from the point of view of what women want out of the Bill. What they want is the opportunity of establishing their own identity. They want to be regarded as persons whose abilities, aspirations and ambitions can be satisfied in the employment sphere alongside men. It is no good saying that this is not another stage in the emancipation of women. It undoubtedly is. I hope therefore that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that


the motion to refer it to a Select Committee will be accepted. We shall, however, scrutinise very carefully the conditions under which the Select Committee is eventually appointed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I have spoken already and therefore, with leave, and before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I say that of course the motion to set up the Select Committee is a matter for the House and that it will have to come before the House when the terms of reference can include instructions as to the timing of that Select Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Rafton Pounder be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and that Sir Richard Thompson be added to the Cornmittee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Ten o'clock.